Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Move the file data to the new blocks
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2007-02-07 01:33:48
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:05:20 +0900 sho@tnes.nec.co.jp wrote:
Move the blocks on the temporary inode to the original inode
by a page.
1. Read the file data from the old blocks to the page
2. Move the block on the temporary inode to the original inode
3. Write the file data on the page into the new blocks
...
+
+/**
+ * ext4_ext_replace_branches - replace original extents with new extents.
+ * @org_inode Original inode
+ * @dest_inode temporary inode
+ * @from_page Page offset
+ * @count_page Page count to be replaced
+ * @delete_start block offset for deletion
+ *
+ * This function returns 0 if succeed, otherwise returns error value.
+ * Replace extents for blocks from "from" to "from+count-1".
+ */
+static int
+ext4_ext_replace_branches(struct inode *org_inode, struct inode *dest_inode,
+ pgoff_t from_page, pgoff_t dest_from_page,
+ pgoff_t count_page, unsigned long *delete_start)
+{
+ struct ext4_ext_path *org_path = NULL;
+ struct ext4_ext_path *dest_path = NULL;
+ struct ext4_extent *oext, *dext;
+ struct ext4_extent tmp_ext;
+ int err = 0;
+ int depth;
+ unsigned long from, count, dest_off, diff, replaced_count = 0;These should be sector_t, shouldn't they?
+ handle_t *handle = NULL; + unsigned jnum; + + from = from_page << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - dest_inode->i_blkbits);
In which case one needs to be very careful to avoid overflows in expressions such as this one.
+ wait_on_page_locked(page); + lock_page(page);
The wait_on_page_locked() is unneeded here.