https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565
--- Comment #5 from Zhiguo.Niu (zhiguo....@unisoc.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #1)
> Thank you for the report.
>
> I think this is valid point that we need to fix.
> I'm testing a RFC patch like this. Thanks.
>
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -1926,8 +1926,12 @@ int f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> goto continue_unlock;
> }
>
> - /* flush inline_data, if it's async context. */
> - if (do_balance && is_inline_node(page)) {
> + /* flush inline_data/inode, if it's async context. */
> + if (!do_balance)
> + goto write_node;
> +
> + /* flush inline_data */
> + if (is_inline_node(page)) {
> clear_inline_node(page);
> unlock_page(page);
> flush_inline_data(sbi, ino_of_node(page));
> @@ -1940,7 +1944,7 @@ int f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> if (flush_dirty_inode(page))
> goto lock_node;
> }
> -
> +write_node:
> f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(page, NODE, true, true);
>
> if (!clear_page_dirty_for_io(page))
Hi Jaegeuk Kim
for comment 1, can you help provide a full diff for this patch, I can not apply
it directly because of the following error:
> fatal: patch fragment without header at line 3: @@ -1926,8 +1926,12 @@ int
> f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
or Should I merge it by Manually?
thanks a lot~
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
