From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 2/2] ext4: truncate the file properly if we fail to copy data from userspace Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 01:50:49 +0530 Message-ID: <20090608202049.GC23723@skywalker> References: <20090605234458.GG11650@duck.suse.cz> <1244435715-6807-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1244435715-6807-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090608162959.GJ23883@mit.edu> <20090608164357.GA23723@skywalker> <20090608191420.GM23883@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.143]:52217 "EHLO e23smtp01.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752867AbZFHUVA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:21:00 -0400 Received: from d23relay02.au.ibm.com (d23relay02.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.244]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n58KKDhf013941 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:20:13 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay02.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n58KL2kR872546 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:21:02 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n58KL1PH027585 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:21:02 +1000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090608191420.GM23883@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:14:20PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:13:57PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > I think i both the case Jan's patch > > allocate-blocks-correctly-with-subpage-blocksize need an update ? Since you have put > > the patch before Jan's changes. > > OK, here's how I updated Jan's patch. I'm going to assume that we'll > submit the ext4 patch queue immediately as soon as the merge window > opens, since my impression is Jan is still waiting for some mm > developers to review his patch set. > > Annesh, does this look good to you? I just did a quick look. Should we do a block_unlock_hole_extend after journal_stop. We do a block_lock_hole_extend before journal_start. > > Jan, if we go down this path, you'll need to update your ext4 patch > with this updated one, to take into account the changes from Aneesh's > patch. > > (We could do it the other way, but that means even more patches queued > up behind Jan's patch series, and I didn't realize originally that > Aneesh intended for these to be queued after Jan's patches. So it > seemed easier to just order Aneesh's patches to avoid block allocation > leaks first, since they are at least functionally (if not > syntactically) independent of the subpagesize blocksize patches.) -aneesh