| Message ID | 000d01cf5b8b$5b149110$113db330$@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 01:53:50PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com> > > Once COLLAPSE RANGE is be disable for ext4 with bigalloc feature till finding > root-cause of problem. It will be enable with fixing that regression of > xfstest(generic 075 and 091) again. > > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com> > Signed-off-by: Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@samsung.com> > Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> Thanks, applied. What's the status of the "[2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in data journalling mode" patch. Is it no longer needed? - 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 Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 01:53:50PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com> > > > > Once COLLAPSE RANGE is be disable for ext4 with bigalloc feature till finding > > root-cause of problem. It will be enable with fixing that regression of > > xfstest(generic 075 and 091) again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@samsung.com> > > Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> > > Thanks, applied. > > What's the status of the "[2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in > data journalling mode" patch. Is it no longer needed? It is needed. Currently, I am considering your suggestion of introducing EXT4_I(inode)->i_write_mutex which can also include ext4_aio_mutex. Thanks! > > - 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:52:28PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > > > What's the status of the "[2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in > > data journalling mode" patch. Is it no longer needed? > It is needed. Currently, I am considering your suggestion of introducing > EXT4_I(inode)->i_write_mutex which can also include ext4_aio_mutex. OK; I've already pushed a set of patches to Linus because it's getting fairly late in the development cycle, and we really want to get as much of the bug fixes into -rc3 (having missed -rc2 by a few hours, sigh). By the way, in doing some final testing, it appears that we are still failing generic/127 with a 1k blocksize. If I block COLLAPSE_RANGE using the patch that everyone but me seems to hate :-), the problem goes away. So we have at least one other issue that needs to be looked at. You can reproduce by grabbing the dev branch from the ext4.git tree, and then cherry-picking the top commit from the unstable branch. Then run "kvm-xfstests -c 1k generic/127", with and without the following in config.custom: EXTRA_ARG="ext4.fallocate_mode_block=0x08" Cheers, - 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:52:28PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > > > > > What's the status of the "[2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in > > > data journalling mode" patch. Is it no longer needed? > > It is needed. Currently, I am considering your suggestion of introducing > > EXT4_I(inode)->i_write_mutex which can also include ext4_aio_mutex. > > OK; I've already pushed a set of patches to Linus because it's getting > fairly late in the development cycle, and we really want to get as > much of the bug fixes into -rc3 (having missed -rc2 by a few hours, > sigh). Okay, I will try to fix remaning issues in -rc3. > > By the way, in doing some final testing, it appears that we are still > failing generic/127 with a 1k blocksize. If I block COLLAPSE_RANGE > using the patch that everyone but me seems to hate :-), the problem > goes away. So we have at least one other issue that needs to be > looked at. > > You can reproduce by grabbing the dev branch from the ext4.git tree, > and then cherry-picking the top commit from the unstable branch. > > Then run "kvm-xfstests -c 1k generic/127", with and without the > following in config.custom: > > EXTRA_ARG="ext4.fallocate_mode_block=0x08" Okay, I will look at this issue now. Thanks Ted!! > > Cheers, > > - 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
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c index 4cf8c5b..3276865 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c @@ -5406,6 +5406,9 @@ int ext4_collapse_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) return -EINVAL; + if (EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_cluster_ratio > 1) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + trace_ext4_collapse_range(inode, offset, len); punch_start = offset >> EXT4_BLOCK_SIZE_BITS(sb);