Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:45AM -0400, Mingming Cao wrote: This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs. The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when the inode is being modified. Which is not what i_version is supposed to do. It'll get you tons of misses for NFSv3 filehandles that rely on the generation staying the same for the same file. Please add a new field for the NFSv4 sequence counter instead of making i_version unuseable. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Jul 11, 2007 09:47 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:45AM -0400, Mingming Cao wrote: This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs. The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when the inode is being modified. Which is not what i_version is supposed to do. It'll get you tons of misses for NFSv3 filehandles that rely on the generation staying the same for the same file. Please add a new field for the NFSv4 sequence counter instead of making i_version unuseable. You are confusing i_generation (the instance of this inode number) with i_version (whether this file has been modified)? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 09:47 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:45AM -0400, Mingming Cao wrote: This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs. The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when the inode is being modified. Which is not what i_version is supposed to do. It'll get you tons of misses for NFSv3 filehandles that rely on the generation staying the same for the same file. Please add a new field for the NFSv4 sequence counter instead of making i_version unuseable. Aren't you confusing i_version and i_generation here? Those are two separate inode fields. Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:52:24AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: On Jul 11, 2007 09:47 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:45AM -0400, Mingming Cao wrote: This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs. The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when the inode is being modified. Which is not what i_version is supposed to do. It'll get you tons of misses for NFSv3 filehandles that rely on the generation staying the same for the same file. Please add a new field for the NFSv4 sequence counter instead of making i_version unuseable. You are confusing i_generation (the instance of this inode number) with i_version (whether this file has been modified)? Yes, sorry. Objection dropped. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:45 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs.
The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when
the inode is being modified.
Again, I don't think I've ever seen this patch before. It is at least a
month old.
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
===
--- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/ext4/ialloc.c2007-06-13 17:16:28.0
-0700
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/ialloc.c 2007-06-13 17:24:45.0 -0700
@@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ got:
inode-i_blocks = 0;
inode-i_mtime = inode-i_atime = inode-i_ctime = ei-i_crtime =
ext4_current_time(inode);
+ inode-i_version = 1;
memset(ei-i_data, 0, sizeof(ei-i_data));
ei-i_dir_start_lookup = 0;
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/inode.c
===
--- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/ext4/inode.c 2007-06-13 17:21:29.0
-0700
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/inode.c 2007-06-13 17:24:45.0 -0700
@@ -3082,6 +3082,7 @@ int ext4_mark_iloc_dirty(handle_t *handl
{
int err = 0;
+ inode-i_version++;
/* the do_update_inode consumes one bh-b_count */
get_bh(iloc-bh);
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c
===
--- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/ext4/super.c 2007-06-13 17:19:11.0
-0700
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c 2007-06-13 17:24:45.0 -0700
@@ -2846,8 +2846,8 @@ out:
i_size_write(inode, off+len-towrite);
EXT4_I(inode)-i_disksize = inode-i_size;
}
- inode-i_version++;
inode-i_mtime = inode-i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
+ inode-i_version = 1;
ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
mutex_unlock(inode-i_mutex);
return len - towrite;
ext4 already has code to update i_version on directories. Here we appear
to be udpating it on regular files?
But for what reason? The changelog doesn't say?
AFAICT the code forgets to update i_version during file overwrites (unless
the overwrite was over a hole). But without a decent description of this
change I cannot tell whether this was a bug.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
Mingming Cao wrote: Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c === --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/ext4/super.c 2007-06-13 17:19:11.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c2007-06-13 17:24:45.0 -0700 @@ -2846,8 +2846,8 @@ out: i_size_write(inode, off+len-towrite); EXT4_I(inode)-i_disksize = inode-i_size; } - inode-i_version++; inode-i_mtime = inode-i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; + inode-i_version = 1; ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode); mutex_unlock(inode-i_mutex); return len - towrite; Is this correct ? . Why do we set the qutoa file inodes version to 1 during write ? - aneesh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update
On Jul 03, 2007 12:19 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: Mingming Cao wrote: Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c === --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/ext4/super.c2007-06-13 17:19:11.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c 2007-06-13 17:24:45.0 -0700 @@ -2846,8 +2846,8 @@ out: i_size_write(inode, off+len-towrite); EXT4_I(inode)-i_disksize = inode-i_size; } -inode-i_version++; inode-i_mtime = inode-i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; +inode-i_version = 1; ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode); mutex_unlock(inode-i_mutex); return len - towrite; Is this correct ? . Why do we set the qutoa file inodes version to 1 during write ? Hmm, I thought we had previously fixed this? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
