On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 04:12:20PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 9.11.18 г. 16:08 ч., Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > Here is the 2nd revision of the extent_io_ops optinal callbacks removal. What > > prompted this version was that I identified a flaw in the initial version - while > > it did check for the presence of an inode in extent_io_tree::private_data, i > > forgot to explicitly check the ino to be different than the ino of the btree inode. > > > > While this doesn't lead to any corruption or risks at the moment it results in > > additional operation being performed on the btree inode io_tree. > > > > This is now fixed by introducing a new function in the first patch and changing > > everything that follows to utilize it in addition to the presence of ->private_data > > > > Testing with xfstests didn't uncover any regressions so this series should be > > good to replace the on in misc-next. > > > > Nikolay Borisov (9): > > btrfs: Add function to distinguish between data and btree inode > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::fill_delalloc > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::writepage_start_hook > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::writepage_end_io_hook > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::check_extent_io_range callback > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::set_bit_hook extent_io callback > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::clear_bit_hook callback > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::merge_extent_hook callback > > btrfs: Remove extent_io_ops::split_extent_hook callback > > Actually patches 2/3/4 are not affected by the problem. Only the rest so > David you might want to use only them + the 1 one that introduces the > new function. THanks for the update. I've replaced the additional checks manually.
