On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:36:45AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'd be much more happy about fixing this properly in nfsd.
So would I, but we've been saying that for years and it still ain't
> But I guess
> the fix is simple enough that we can put it into XFS for now. Any
> reason you use up a whole int in the inode instead of using a flag in
I wasn't sure how many dirty releases we wanted before triggering
the change of behaviour. A single dirty release seems to be fine in
my testing so far, and if that continues then I think that , like
you suggest, changing it to a flag in i_flags is the right thing to
> > -
> > - ASSERT(ip->i_delayed_blks == 0);
> > + /*
> > + * even after flushing the inode, there can still be delalloc
> > + * blocks on the inode beyond EOF due to speculative
> > + * preallocation. These are not removed until the release
> > + * function is called or the inode is inactivated. Hence we
> > + * cannot assert here that ip->i_delayed_blks == 0.
> > + */
> Shouldn't this be in a separate patch given that we can fail the flush
> due to iolock contention? I think this and the swapext fix are .37
> material in fact.
Agreed. I should have noted in the series preamble that I thought these
probably need splitting out into separate bug fixing patches rather
than being lumped in here.