Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Al,
> >
> > Thanks. I'll print this one out and post it on the wall for tonight's
> > debugging session.
> [snip]
> > > (e.g. generic_commit_write have to mess with i_size value to update the
> ^^^^^^^
> Ugh. s/have/doesn't have/, indeed. Sorry.
Wrong syntax:
:%s/have/doesn't have/gc
:-)
>
> As for tonight's debugging session... I love your optimism, but I would
> really like to see comments from Linus. For one thing, patch intersects
> with Rik's one, so I wouldn't expect that to be over tonight (and that's
> completely aside of the chances that Linus will say "no" to that idea).
> Linus?
>
> ObDevices: the last time when we were talking about the devices-in-pagecache
> the things stopped on the ->i_size accesses and related ugliness. IMO the
> main reason of that ugliness was in the attempts to _move_ the i_size to
> address_space. Which was a patently bad idea. How about mirroring it
> there? Notice that atomicity is not an issue - we don't have it when we
> set/modify long long anyway. Said that, I really think that caching the
> values of these expressions makes sense regardless of device handling.
In reality, the file has already been extended in prepare_write() and
the fs's should
always make this assumption. If the write fails, it should be treated
as an I/O error. i_size should be assumed to have been extended at this
point (since the space on the device has
already been allocated.
The way aroud this is to enforce i_size updates in prepare_write()
(this is where I return, "out of space" return codes, and the other FS's
would probably be ok with some minor
changes.).
:-)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST