From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: BUG with delayed allocation
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:26:25 +0530
Message-ID: <20080320175625.GA6931@skywalker>
References: <20080319085235.GA6752@skywalker> <1205974018.3637.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080320053902.GD6967@skywalker> <1206034190.3637.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1206034190.3637.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:50AM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 11:09 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> > > Could you try the following patch? It updates the i_disksize at the
> > > write_end time.
> > > 
> > 
> > I will test the patch and update you. BTW shouldn't we update
> > i_disksize only after actual block got allocated ?
> > 
> > 
> Hmm...I am not  100% sure but I think we should not to change the
> behavior that the on-disk inode size should be updated when write()
> returns to user. Right now the in-memory inode size is updated, user
> would expecting the same when they run e2fsck, but e2fsck reads inode
> size from disk. Pushing the inode i_disksize update at the writeout
> (allocation) time will cause the window that i_size is different than
> the i_disksize being enlarged quite big.
> 

If we are updating i_disksize during write_end and if we crash before actually
allocating the blocks e2fsck will find errors because the inode doesn't
really have that many blocks right ?


-aneesh