xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - XFS multiple blocksize support

To: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE - XFS multiple blocksize support
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:18:43 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1021574774.1300.25.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from lord@xxxxxxx on Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:46:13PM -0500
References: <200205161606.g4GG6ow24690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020516193359.A10137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1021574774.1300.25.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:46:13PM -0500, Stephen Lord wrote:
> >  - traversing inode->i_dirty_buffers and inode->i_dirty_data_buffers needs
> >    the lru_list_lock, thus both the old and the new version are (at least
> >    in theory) racy, maybe just use inode_has_buffers() instead?
> 
> It is not exported right now, so I would have to add that, this is
> VN_DIRTY you are talking about right?

Umm, yes. (should have mentioned that..)

> Both the places we use that
> may be dead meat anyway, we should have true inode dirty management
> now as a side effect of this change. I have not really investigated
> that part of things yet.

Okay.

> If you can find the place where we do not zero part of a page when
> writing into a hole in the file in the block size < pagesize case
> that would be great! fsx_linux runs a few hundred thousand ops
> before it finds that. I have been staring at the code too hard
> for too long to see it right now.

I can take a look, but of course I can't promise anything :)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>