On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:23:14PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>> As maybe_insert_hole is only called by btrfs_cont_expand here, which
> >>> means it's a really hole, I don't expect drop_extents would drop
> >>> anything, we can remove this drop_extents and put an assert after
> >>> btrfs_insert_file_extent for checking EEXIST.
> >> Sounds good.
> > Let me make a v2 and have a fstests run.
> It turns out that the btrfs_drop_extents() here is quite necessary
> since fallocate(2) has a FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE option, and when that
> happens, a hole extent would be appended between the EOF and fallocate
> range's start, then a later truncate up would have to drop these hole
> extents in order to expand with a new hole...

Would it make sense to split the cases where FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is and
is not used? Either passing an argument or 2 functions where one could
avoid the drop. I've looked at the code only briefly, so this may be a
nonsense in the end.

> As I don't see a way to gracefully solve this except keeping
> drop_extents(), lets drop this patch instead.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to