[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Jaegeuk Kim]

If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.

Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
 fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
 	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
 	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
 
-	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
+	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
+	if (inode->i_ino)
+		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
+							inode->i_ino);
 	if (xnid)
 		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
 	if (inode->i_nlink) {
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Jaegeuk Kim]

If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.

Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
 fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
 	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
 	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
 
-	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
+	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
+	if (inode->i_ino)
+		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
+							inode->i_ino);
 	if (xnid)
 		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
 	if (inode->i_nlink) {
-- 
2.11.0


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

[PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Jaegeuk Kim]

This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
a node chain since the last checkpoint.

Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
 		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
 			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
 			sbi->discard_blks--;
+
+		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
+		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
+			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
+				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
+		}
 	} else {
 		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Jaegeuk Kim]

This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
a node chain since the last checkpoint.

Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
 		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
 			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
 			sbi->discard_blks--;
+
+		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
+		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
+			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
+				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
+		}
 	} else {
 		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
-- 
2.11.0


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
> a node chain since the last checkpoint.

Good catch!

Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
add_discard_addrs?

Thanks,

> 
> Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
>  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
>  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
>  			sbi->discard_blks--;
> +
> +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
> +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
> +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
> +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
> +		}
>  	} else {
>  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
> a node chain since the last checkpoint.

Good catch!

Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
add_discard_addrs?

Thanks,

> 
> Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
>  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
>  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
>  			sbi->discard_blks--;
> +
> +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
> +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
> +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
> +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
> +		}
>  	} else {
>  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
> > a node chain since the last checkpoint.
> 
> Good catch!
> 
> Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
> add_discard_addrs?

I've checked them. is_checkpointed_data() has nothing to do with this warm node
and this prevents add_discard_addrs to issue discard command.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
> >  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
> >  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
> >  			sbi->discard_blks--;
> > +
> > +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
> > +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
> > +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
> > +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
> > +		}
> >  	} else {
> >  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
> > 

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
> > a node chain since the last checkpoint.
> 
> Good catch!
> 
> Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
> add_discard_addrs?

I've checked them. is_checkpointed_data() has nothing to do with this warm node
and this prevents add_discard_addrs to issue discard command.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
> >  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
> >  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
> >  			sbi->discard_blks--;
> > +
> > +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
> > +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
> > +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
> > +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
> > +		}
> >  	} else {
> >  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
> > 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/9 5:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
>>> a node chain since the last checkpoint.
>>
>> Good catch!
>>
>> Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
>> add_discard_addrs?
> 
> I've checked them. is_checkpointed_data() has nothing to do with this warm node
> and this prevents add_discard_addrs to issue discard command.

That's right.

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
>>>  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
>>>  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
>>>  			sbi->discard_blks--;
>>> +
>>> +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
>>> +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
>>> +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
>>> +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
>>> +		}
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
>>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't overwrite node block by SSR

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/9 5:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> This patch fixes that SSR can overwrite previous warm node block consisting of
>>> a node chain since the last checkpoint.
>>
>> Good catch!
>>
>> Need to consider the impact to other accesser, e.g. is_checkpointed_data,
>> add_discard_addrs?
> 
> I've checked them. is_checkpointed_data() has nothing to do with this warm node
> and this prevents add_discard_addrs to issue discard command.

That's right.

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 5b6c6be2d878 ("f2fs: use SSR for warm node as well")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index 2ae36d04d03e..684b869e1861 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1177,6 +1177,12 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, int del)
>>>  		if (f2fs_discard_en(sbi) &&
>>>  			!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
>>>  			sbi->discard_blks--;
>>> +
>>> +		/* don't overwrite by SSR to keep node chain */
>>> +		if (se->type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE) {
>>> +			if (!f2fs_test_and_set_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
>>> +				se->ckpt_valid_blocks++;
>>> +		}
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		if (!f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map)) {
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
>>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.

Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
f2fs_evict_inode, right?

Thanks,

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
>  	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
>  
> -	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
> +	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
> +	if (inode->i_ino)
> +		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
> +							inode->i_ino);
>  	if (xnid)
>  		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
>  	if (inode->i_nlink) {
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.

Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
f2fs_evict_inode, right?

Thanks,

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
>  	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
>  
> -	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
> +	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
> +	if (inode->i_ino)
> +		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
> +							inode->i_ino);
>  	if (xnid)
>  		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
>  	if (inode->i_nlink) {
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> > during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
> 
> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
> f2fs_evict_inode, right?

Right.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > @@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> >  	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
> >  	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
> >  
> > -	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
> > +	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
> > +	if (inode->i_ino)
> > +		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
> > +							inode->i_ino);
> >  	if (xnid)
> >  		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
> >  	if (inode->i_nlink) {
> > 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> > during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
> 
> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
> f2fs_evict_inode, right?

Right.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/inode.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > index 24bb8213d974..ef8610bf950f 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > @@ -411,7 +411,10 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> >  	stat_dec_inline_dir(inode);
> >  	stat_dec_inline_inode(inode);
> >  
> > -	invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino, inode->i_ino);
> > +	/* ino == 0, if f2fs_new_inode() was failed t*/
> > +	if (inode->i_ino)
> > +		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), inode->i_ino,
> > +							inode->i_ino);
> >  	if (xnid)
> >  		invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), xnid, xnid);
> >  	if (inode->i_nlink) {
> > 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/9 5:35, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
>>> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
>>
>> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
>> f2fs_evict_inode, right?
> 
> Right.

I mean those codes below invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi),,)
After having a look at them, I think it's OK without any change. :)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Thanks,

Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: don't need to invalidate wrong node page

[Chao Yu]

On 2017/3/9 5:35, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
>>> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
>>
>> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
>> f2fs_evict_inode, right?
> 
> Right.

I mean those codes below invalidate_mapping_pages(NODE_MAPPING(sbi),,)
After having a look at them, I think it's OK without any change. :)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Thanks,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford