[Ocfs2-devel] [patch 09/15] ocfs2: add functions to add and remove inode in orphan dir

[Joseph Qi]

Hi Mark,

On 2014/12/22 15:06, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 09:04:25AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>> So after this change, once unlink and dio happen concurrently, there
>>>> may be two kinds of results:
>>>> 1. On the same node, only one entry will be added with flag
>>>> OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL, and flag OCFS2_DIO_ORPHANED_FL will be set and clear
>>>> during dio.
>>>> 2. On different nodes, two entries will be added with each flag
>>>> OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL or OCFS2_DIO_ORPHANED_FL.
>>>>
>>>> Since entry name is stringified from blkno and the length is fixed
>>>> OCFS2_ORPHAN_NAMELEN, so adding a prefix as you suggested may affect
>>>> too much.
>>>
>>> No, adding the prefix is much more preferable to intentionally corrupting
>>> the conents of a directory. That OCFS2_ORPHAN_NAMELEN is a #define does not
>>> matter, you are free to make it whatever reasonable value fits the name. The
>>> directory code naturally handles this, whtether the length is
>>> OCFS2_ORPHAN_NAMELEN or OCFS2_ORPHAN_NAMELEN + PREFIX_NAMELEN.
>>>
>>> Also if you were to run fsck against the file system it will (should) complain
>>> about having duplciate entries in the orphan dir.
>>>
>>> Aside from the corruption issue, there are usability issues too. Someone
>>> running "ls //orphan_dir:0000" will not be able to tell whether a name is
>>> there for dio or nlink==0. If you prefix it, then debugging becomes much
>>> easier.
>>>
>> Okay, I will try to take your advice and make a change.
> 
> Great, thank you.
> 
> 
>>> Btw, did you see my note about a readonly superblock flag for this? We're
>>> going to need to handle backward compatibility too.
>> Yes. At my first glance, it may need a lot change to support feature ro compat
>> at my first glance. I need to investigate on it before do the actual change.
>> Thanks.
> 
> Kernel should be straight forward - if the flag isn't there just use the
> existing fallback. Otherwise we can use the new direct_IO code.
> 
>>From memory, in ocfs2-tools you'll have to update mkfs to write the flag,
> tunefs to turn it on/off for an existing filesystem and fsck to truncate the
> direct-io orphans it finds.
> 	--Mark
> 
For the comments about setting it to a ro compat feature, I still have
one more questions.
If I check this feature flag in ocfs2_direct_IO, that means the existing
formatted ocfs2 volume won't take this feature except we explicitly turn
it on using tunefs.
But I don't think there is any problem if feature is default on.
Do you mean we have to treat this feature as optional and let user
choose?

> --
> Mark Fasheh
> 
> .
>