On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah. See my other mail - I don't think the patch is needed at all,
> although I'm convinced that it would actually hide the problem for the
> particular case of INN (zeroing out the partial block is not an issue
> there, as truncate will have done it - it's really only protection against
> badly behaved software and shouldn't matter to any "regular" use).
True, but that way we also get the consistent rules wrt. async/sync.
> > We know that ->writepage() is called and we know that data doesn't get
> > to the disk. How can it happen? If we can... Oh, fsck. Linus, we could
> > very well lose the buffers since the moment when page had been read.
> > See what happens? We recreate the buffer ring for the page and it's
> > nowhere near "everything uptodate" state.
>
> Yeah. See my suggested fix in the other mail. We just must not read in
> buffers for pages that are already up-to-date.
We might as well do it in create_empty_buffers(), FWIW. Do you see any
case when it would mean extra work? I'm thinking about the following:
if (page is uptodate)
do get_block(...,0) for all buffers and mark them uptodate
in the end of buffer-ring creation. Comments?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 00:02:57 EDT