> How about the following:
> * dquot_{alloc,free}_block() _never_ blocks.
> * we have 3 inlined helper functions - alloc_block(), free_block() and
> change_xid(). They get exclusion (BKL, spinlock, whatever) and update both
> quota and i_blocks.
>
> Consequences:
> * quota for
How about the following:
* dquot_{alloc,free}_block() _never_ blocks.
* we have 3 inlined helper functions - alloc_block(), free_block() and
change_xid(). They get exclusion (BKL, spinlock, whatever) and update both
quota and i_blocks.
Consequences:
* quota for
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > of blocks after notify_change() once more all the quota will be counted
> > > properly. The only problem is that quota can be exceeded this way. We have to
>check
> >
> > Nope. You've just shifted the race window (and inverted the
> > effect) -
> > of blocks after notify_change() once more all the quota will be counted
> > properly. The only problem is that quota can be exceeded this way. We have to check
>
> Nope. You've just shifted the race window (and inverted the
> effect) - think what happens if you've got new allocations
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jan Kara wrote:
> Yes I agree that if notify_change() blocks we still can account imprecisely.
> I think I didn't understand your proposal. The pointers to structures where
> quota should be charged are already in inode. And if we count current number
Sorry, it
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Following patch fixes bug in dquot_transfer() - while we were sleeping
> > i_blocks might change and so number quota was miscounted. Patches are
> > against 2.2.16 and 2.4.0-test6 (but should apply well on newer versions).
>
>
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Jan Kara wrote:
Hello.
Following patch fixes bug in dquot_transfer() - while we were sleeping
i_blocks might change and so number quota was miscounted. Patches are
against 2.2.16 and 2.4.0-test6 (but should apply well on newer versions).
Umm... It
of blocks after notify_change() once more all the quota will be counted
properly. The only problem is that quota can be exceeded this way. We have to check
Nope. You've just shifted the race window (and inverted the
effect) - think what happens if you've got new allocations after
Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 4 September 2000 08:25:
> Following patch fixes bug in dquot_transfer() - while we were sleeping
>i_blocks might change and so number quota was miscounted. Patches are
>against 2.2.16 and 2.4.0-test6 (but should apply well on newer versions).
I seem to
Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 4 September 2000 08:25:
Following patch fixes bug in dquot_transfer() - while we were sleeping
i_blocks might change and so number quota was miscounted. Patches are
against 2.2.16 and 2.4.0-test6 (but should apply well on newer versions).
I seem to have
10 matches
Mail list logo
