On 2022/4/29 2:18, Daeho Jeong wrote:> + *old_addr =
dn.data_blkaddr;
+ f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range(&dn, 1);
+ dec_valid_block_count(sbi, F2FS_I(inode)->cow_inode, count);
+ inc_valid_block_count(sbi, inode, &count);
+ f2fs_replace_block(sbi, &dn, dn.data_blkaddr, new_addr,
+ ni.version, true, false);
My concern is, if cow_inode's data was persisted into previous checkpoint,
and then f2fs_replace_block() will update SSA from cow_inode to inode?
it will cause inconsistent status of last valid checkpoint? Or am I mssing
something?
- f2fs_submit_merged_write_cond(sbi, inode, NULL, 0, DATA);
+ new = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(revoke_entry_slab, GFP_NOFS,
+ true, NULL);
+ if (!new) {
+ f2fs_put_dnode(&dn);
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
It doesn't need to handle failure of f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc()
due to nofail parameter is true.
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
