Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210923130814.140814-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <20210923130814.140814-4-cgxu519@mykernel.net>
 <CAJfpegvh9if1tZOdnzn87JmDBZC0XBzf63NoOydkCGyX4ssaag@mail.gmail.com> <c7bf6194-2613-0245-e133-8b6ad1386eb8@139.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7bf6194-2613-0245-e133-8b6ad1386eb8@139.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:43:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvpG9MM4m3ZY8RS2h7CGekRMZdMSrNEYYadkNN_xyAy-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 03/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->evict_inode operation
To:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@139.com>
Cc:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 08:08, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@139.com> wrote:
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2021/10/6 23:33, Miklos Szeredi =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> > On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 15:08, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wro=
te:
> >> Implement overlayfs' ->evict_inode operation,
> >> so that we can clear dirty flags of overlayfs inode.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
> >> ---
> >>   fs/overlayfs/super.c | 7 +++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> index 51886ba6130a..2ab77adf7256 100644
> >> --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> >> @@ -406,11 +406,18 @@ static int ovl_remount(struct super_block *sb, i=
nt *flags, char *data)
> >>          return ret;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static void ovl_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> >> +{
> >> +       inode->i_state &=3D ~I_DIRTY_ALL;
> >> +       clear_inode(inode);
> > clear_inode() should already clear the dirty flags; the default
> > eviction should work fine without having to define an ->evict_inode.
> > What am I missing?
>
> Yeah, you are right, we don't need overlayfs' own ->evict_inode anymore
>
> because we wait all writeback upper inodes in overlayfs' ->sync_fs.

Okay, I dropped this patch then.

Thanks,
Miklos