Patchwork [1/2,for,2.6.31] ext4: Use -1 as the fake block number for delayed new buffer_head

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Aneesh Kumar K.V
Date April 29, 2009, 11:13 a.m.
Message ID <1241003611-3652-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/26613/
State Deferred
Headers show

Comments

Aneesh Kumar K.V - April 29, 2009, 11:13 a.m.
Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for
the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for
block number '0'. So  use -1 instead.

Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

---
 fs/ext4/inode.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Theodore Ts'o - May 1, 2009, 6:58 p.m.
You mean "for 2.6.30", right?

						- 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
Aneesh Kumar K.V - May 1, 2009, 7:05 p.m.
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> You mean "for 2.6.30", right?
> 

The reason for me to post two series one for 2.6.30 and other for 2.6.31
was the [Patch 2/2] for 2.6.31 needs more testing. I added this specific
patch in both the series to make sure  we don't miss the change in case
we decided not to make any changes for 2.6.30. Also in my testing I created
different topgit branches with different dependencies. So having [PATCH
1/2 ] in both the series helped in testing with topgit branches.

-aneesh
--
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
Theodore Ts'o - May 1, 2009, 10:59 p.m.
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:35:46AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > You mean "for 2.6.30", right?
> > 
> 
> The reason for me to post two series one for 2.6.30 and other for 2.6.31
> was the [Patch 2/2] for 2.6.31 needs more testing. I added this specific
> patch in both the series to make sure  we don't miss the change in case
> we decided not to make any changes for 2.6.30. Also in my testing I created
> different topgit branches with different dependencies. So having [PATCH
> 1/2 ] in both the series helped in testing with topgit branches.

Yeah, but you didn't label the other series as "for 2.6.30".  To makes
matter worse, the fact that patch #2 in what I think is your 2.6.30
patch series (the V4 series?) is the same as patch #1 of your 2.6.31
series, and your "2.6.31" series doesn't have a patch backing out the
2.6.30 changes (I assume you need to do that, right?), left me as a
very confused maintainer about. 

OK, so what I have in the patch queue is the V4 version, somewhat
modified, and I'll ignore the "for 2.6.31" patches for now.  When
you're ready, please send me patches versus the end of the stable
series of the ext4 patch queue, and please give me this kind of
context.

If you could verify what's in the patch queue, I'd appreciate it.

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

Patch

diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index e91f978..3afd5f1 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -2318,7 +2318,7 @@  static int ext4_da_get_block_prep(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
 			/* not enough space to reserve */
 			return ret;
 
-		map_bh(bh_result, inode->i_sb, 0);
+		map_bh(bh_result, inode->i_sb, -1);
 		set_buffer_new(bh_result);
 		set_buffer_delay(bh_result);
 	} else if (ret > 0) {