From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Allison Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] ext4: fix 1k block bugs Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:41:14 -0700 Message-ID: <4E67BACA.4040600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1314750513-10045-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110906045942.GA4059@thunk.org> <4E664C83.2080001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:36447 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052Ab1IGSlS (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:41:18 -0400 Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p87IHkk0026333 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:17:46 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p87IfH9N221518 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:41:18 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p87IfHpM020610 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:41:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E664C83.2080001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/06/2011 09:38 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > On 09/05/2011 09:59 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: >> Allison, >> >> Many, many thanks for your work on this patch series!! It's clearly >> been a very long slog. >> >> I've pulled in the first three patches, since I think those are >> clearly correct at this point. One minor change I've made was I fixed >> the spelling the flag, which I channged to >> EXT4_DISCARD_PARTIAL_PG_ZERO_UNMAPPED. (Sorry, but seeing MAPED >> everywhere was just grating on my nerves. :-) >> >> I didn't want to apply your 4th patch in the series since we're >> planning on reducing the usage of i_mutex in the fs/ext4 code proper, >> as recommended by Christoph. It wasn't immediately obvious to me >> whether it was safe to apply any of the patches after #4, so for now >> I've just merged in the first three, since they clearly fix real >> problems that show up in xfstests. >> >> Can you comment on whether patches #5, #6, and #7 depend on #4? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Ted > > Hi Ted, > > Patches 5 and 6 do not depend on 4, and this set only has 6 patches, so > no need to worry about patch 7 :) So it is ok to just skip patch 4, I > will see if I can find another way to solve the race conditions > Yongqiang pointed out with out the use of i_mutex. Many thanks to you > too for all the help along the way. :) > > Allison Henderson > Hi Ted, I've been working on another way to resolve the punch hole races with out i_mutex, and Im starting to think that maybe we're going to need another semaphore some where. Can I ask what the plans are for reducing the usage of i_mutex in ext4? I wasnt sure if someone might already be doing this. Thx! Allison Henderson >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html