| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfs: don't dirty buffers beyond EOF |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:53:58 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140829003911.GA30463@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1409226551-16570-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1409226551-16570-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140829003911.GA30463@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:39:11PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Not sure if my 10 cents are worth anything given that I haven't spent > much time with this code recently, but I feel very uneasy diverging > from the generic path in this area. I can't see how we have any other choice right now. We're caught between a rock and a hard place - XFS uses bufferheads differently to all other filesystems (esp. w.r.t. to EOF block zeroing behaviour), and so changing behaviour in the generic code to suit XFS is likely to introduce subtle data corruption bugs in other filesystems. I think the best thing we can do is move away from bufferheads in XFS. We've already got lots of hacky code to manage bufferhead/extent state coherency and so the sooner we get rid of bufferheads the sooner that crap goes away, too. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Find hardlinks to a file, Chris Holcombe |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] xfs: xfs_buf_ioend and xfs_buf_iodone_work duplicate functionality, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfs: don't dirty buffers beyond EOF, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Find hardlinks to a file, Chris Holcombe |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |