On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 08:04, Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:13:29PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 12:50, Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: > > > > > > > That seems way more complicated. I'd much rather go with something > > > > like may patch plus maybe a big fat comment explaining that persisting > > > > the size update is the file systems job. Note that a lot of the modern > > > > file systems don't use the VFS inode tracking for that, besides XFS > > > > that includes at least btrfs and ocfs2 as well. > > > > > > I'd suggest something like this as the baseline: > > > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-i_size > > > > Alright, can we change this as follows? > > > > [Also, I'm not really sure why we check for (pos + ret > inode->i_size) > > when we have already read inode->i_size into old_size.] > > Yeah, you probably want to change that to old_size. Your changes look > good to me, > > Can you just take the patch over from here as you've clearly done more > work on it and resend the whole series?
Ok, done. It's just the two patches; passes xfstests for xfs and gfs2, the current users. Darrick, can you please push this in the next merge window as "usual"? Thanks, Andreas
