On 0, Alexander Viro <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Rasmus, you introduced a bug because you removed the code but left the
> > comment around. now /* this should go into ->truncate */ is there and very
> > confusing - what should go into ->truncate?
> ... except that comment is there for purpose. Expanding ->truncate()
> should not set ->i_size until it's done with the metadata. You don't want
> mappings on the part currently being expanded. It doesn't matter for ext2
> and friends, but it's a problem for FAT and friends.
This is probably just me being a bit dense, but I am having problems
understanding your comment. The code path affected by my patch (and
where the comment is placed) is not part of the do_expand code path
(the "Expanding ->truncate()" from your comment?). And in do_expand
we already set i_size=offset before calling truncate(). Which you
seem to object to?
I guess my question could be boiled down to: Do you think my patch
fscks things up? Or is this a general comment on things that should
-- Regards, Rasmus(firstname.lastname@example.org)
Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life. -Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking campaign. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST