| Message ID | 1357148744-4895-4-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Hi Jan, Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent status tree. I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch set. So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-) Otherwise, the patch looks good to me. You can add: Reviewed-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com> Regards, - Zheng > --- > fs/ext4/indirect.c | 5 ----- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/indirect.c b/fs/ext4/indirect.c > index 20862f9..993247c 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/indirect.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/indirect.c > @@ -807,11 +807,6 @@ ssize_t ext4_ind_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, > > retry: > if (rw == READ && ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode)) { > - if (unlikely(atomic_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten))) { > - mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); > - ext4_flush_unwritten_io(inode); > - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); > - } > /* > * Nolock dioread optimization may be dynamically disabled > * via ext4_inode_block_unlocked_dio(). Check inode's state > -- > 1.7.1 > > -- > 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
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten > > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > Hi Jan, > > Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent > status tree. I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch > set. So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-) Actually, the extent status tree patches are already in my tree, although I'm still testing and reviewing them. so they haven't been finalized yet (which is why I haven't sent an e-mail ack). If the conflict is minor, I'll take care of it. If it's non-trivial, I'll yell for help. :-) - Ted -- 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
On Thu 17-01-13 16:58:14, Ted Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten > > > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent > > status tree. I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch > > set. So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-) > > Actually, the extent status tree patches are already in my tree, > although I'm still testing and reviewing them. so they haven't been > finalized yet (which is why I haven't sent an e-mail ack). If the > conflict is minor, I'll take care of it. If it's non-trivial, I'll > yell for help. :-) This patch actually isn't in Zheng's latest submission so there shouldn't be any conflict. Honza
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:02:39AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 17-01-13 16:58:14, Ted Tso wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten > > > > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent > > > status tree. I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch > > > set. So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-) > > > > Actually, the extent status tree patches are already in my tree, > > although I'm still testing and reviewing them. so they haven't been > > finalized yet (which is why I haven't sent an e-mail ack). If the > > conflict is minor, I'll take care of it. If it's non-trivial, I'll > > yell for help. :-) > This patch actually isn't in Zheng's latest submission so there shouldn't > be any conflict. Hi Ted, Sorry for the delay reply because of travelling. As Jan said above, I have dropped the patch of unwritten extent conversion from the patch set of extent status tree. So there isn't any conflict. Thanks, - Zheng -- 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
diff --git a/fs/ext4/indirect.c b/fs/ext4/indirect.c index 20862f9..993247c 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/indirect.c +++ b/fs/ext4/indirect.c @@ -807,11 +807,6 @@ ssize_t ext4_ind_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, retry: if (rw == READ && ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode)) { - if (unlikely(atomic_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten))) { - mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); - ext4_flush_unwritten_io(inode); - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); - } /* * Nolock dioread optimization may be dynamically disabled * via ext4_inode_block_unlocked_dio(). Check inode's state
When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> --- fs/ext4/indirect.c | 5 ----- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)