Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> writes:

quoted text
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:55:30AM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
>> Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:58:10AM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
>
>> >> @@ -2240,6 +2241,29 @@ ssize_t generic_file_aio_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
>> >>  	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>> >>  	ret = __generic_file_aio_write_nolock(iocb, iov, nr_segs,
>> >>  			&iocb->ki_pos);
>> >> +	/* 
>> >> +	 * If __generic_file_aio_write_nolock has failed.
>> >> +	 * This may happen because of:
>> >> +	 * 1) Bad segment found (failed before actual write attempt)
>> >> +	 * 2) Segments are good, but actual write operation failed
>> >> +	 *    and may have instantiated a few blocks outside i_size.
>> >> +	 *   a) in case of buffered write these blocks was already
>> >> +	 *   	trimmed by generic_file_buffered_write()
>> >> +	 *   b) in case of O_DIRECT these blocks weren't trimmed yet.
>> >> +	 *
>> >> +	 * In case of (2b) these blocks have to be trimmed off again.
>> >> +	 */
>> >> +	if (unlikely( ret < 0 && file->f_flags & O_DIRECT)) {
>> >> +		unsigned long nr_segs_avail = nr_segs;
>> >> +		size_t count = 0;
>> >> +		if (!generic_segment_checks(iov, &nr_segs_avail, &count,
>> >> +				VERIFY_READ)) {
>> >> +			/*It is (2b) case, because segments are good*/
>> >> +			loff_t isize = i_size_read(inode);
>> >> +			if (pos + count > isize)
>> >> +				vmtruncate(inode, isize);
>> >> +		}
>> >> +	}
>> >
>> > OK, but wouldn't this be better to be done in the actual direct IO
>> > functions themselves? Thus you could be sure that you have the 2b case,
>> > and the code would be less fragile to something changing?
>> Ohh, We can't just call vmtruncate() after generic_file_direct_write()
>> failure while __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() becase where is no guarantee
>> what i_mutex held. In fact all existing fs always invoke 
>> __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() with i_mutex held in case of S_ISREG files,
>> but this was't explicitly demanded and documented. I've proposed to do it in
>> previous versions of this patch, because it this just document current state
>> of affairs, but David Chinner wasn't agree with it.
>
> It seemed like it was documented in the comments that you altered in this
> patch...
>
> How would such a filesystem that did not hold i_mutex propose to fix the
> problem?
>
> The burden should be on those filesystems that might not want to hold
> i_mutex here, to solve the problem nicely, rather than generic code to take
> this ugly code.
Ok then what do you think about this version http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/18/103
witch was posted almost  month ago :)
quoted text
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/