| Message ID | 20181203222503.30649-10-hch@lst.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/11] xfs: remove xfs_trim_extent_eof | expand |
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:25:01PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > No user of it in the iomap code at the moment, but we should not > actively report wrong information if we can trivially get it right. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c > index d19f99e5476a..bbc5d2e06b06 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c > @@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( > struct xfs_bmbt_irec imap, cmap; > struct xfs_iext_cursor icur, ccur; > xfs_fsblock_t prealloc_blocks = 0; > - bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared; > + bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared = false; > int whichfork = XFS_DATA_FORK; > int error = 0; > > @@ -709,13 +709,14 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( > if (imap.br_startoff > offset_fsb) { > xfs_trim_extent(&cmap, offset_fsb, > imap.br_startoff - offset_fsb); > - error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, false); > + error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, true); Does this belong in the previous patch? (Maybe all of it?) --D > goto out_unlock; > } > /* ensure we only report blocks we have a reservation for */ > xfs_trim_extent(&imap, cmap.br_startoff, cmap.br_blockcount); > + shared = true; > } > - error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, false); > + error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, shared); > out_unlock: > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > return error; > -- > 2.19.1 >
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:38:28PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > @@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( > > struct xfs_bmbt_irec imap, cmap; > > struct xfs_iext_cursor icur, ccur; > > xfs_fsblock_t prealloc_blocks = 0; > > - bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared; > > + bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared = false; > > int whichfork = XFS_DATA_FORK; > > int error = 0; > > > > @@ -709,13 +709,14 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( > > if (imap.br_startoff > offset_fsb) { > > xfs_trim_extent(&cmap, offset_fsb, > > imap.br_startoff - offset_fsb); > > - error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, false); > > + error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, true); > > Does this belong in the previous patch? (Maybe all of it?) Not really, as it is just a nice to have thing that is a change of behavior to what we did before. So I'd rather have it in a single patch that documents what exactly we did here and why.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c index d19f99e5476a..bbc5d2e06b06 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c @@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( struct xfs_bmbt_irec imap, cmap; struct xfs_iext_cursor icur, ccur; xfs_fsblock_t prealloc_blocks = 0; - bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared; + bool eof = false, cow_eof = false, shared = false; int whichfork = XFS_DATA_FORK; int error = 0; @@ -709,13 +709,14 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay( if (imap.br_startoff > offset_fsb) { xfs_trim_extent(&cmap, offset_fsb, imap.br_startoff - offset_fsb); - error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, false); + error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &cmap, true); goto out_unlock; } /* ensure we only report blocks we have a reservation for */ xfs_trim_extent(&imap, cmap.br_startoff, cmap.br_blockcount); + shared = true; } - error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, false); + error = xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, shared); out_unlock: xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); return error;
No user of it in the iomap code at the moment, but we should not actively report wrong information if we can trivially get it right. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)