From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B63AE43E4B1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 15:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787671768; cv=none; b=Eg34m9z2rJp0+00ycVtEvTNDlFviQU/s7EDAwQcrTteaZED5YHJM14L2OdTtdTG3QehOuAhVH3Kq7nkk3bgvbLiAQGQ5cIZK+r+jGfBRRA38HomAIib8sQ7SAMEfh4zWnTW8Q5NO4xEHhqFqxvXaDGK7fUndbrxA3+VpQwBxGSs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787671768; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+xl3+Mg6rDUXvlaeNtcabihUZnoNa3VintQ/6hb4n1I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ljPhr4q+Lqtk2X/i1nJJMJp1KO3PJaWYMuROYGxOyTTL9CYyu893JxHnT8utVX1BeBH9iZMqylYm+i4rs0xtUy3deaodrjwptaqXVds/a2I5IyeNAflE0TowXzN/zcTrmlR21t1v4BY1R3YvTtFeFDoOvJCxnSrT9dZmBBOyhm0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=R12JOXqJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="R12JOXqJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA86E1F000E9; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 15:29:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787671760; bh=tVKRvWX6p8X9bZrtcSCqgbr9okk3NH9G2DC7FeryNdc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=R12JOXqJ4q2QccFR9fFWBKsqbjFMfIU+wcLrv4ZDcI4EWiJix+FpDr/5wy1XK04Ck hVeeWF6XTWNqNwUn9lhiymxnF/XUhK4CJ/yULtPAnYj8rrF9vp9CF4tPLlkRfA72mU k82VVYvdhO3VWiHzNEz3nB5jemNhDOYqw5rZH+886xQYfHQ9tu6Ro9UYVmD1k2NP2a hWMBcoYUe23uP/w1Byvr2YnK8Buxvf9Eb5ezN1dGmFsGXkLjzbMf9llZXo+vKP4/Ye sxSF7CaclgHxB5Fndk3zKfkWuFPqw21FiIPZH3hnLvq/0yvzpe8dtYOFN+M4ldkdtV 1//4OvfKzny2w== Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 15:29:18 +0000 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Wenjie Qi Cc: chao@kernel.org, qiwenjie@xiaomi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: don't leave the hashed inode while it's unlinked Message-ID: References: <20260818200121.2684318-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20260825023925.230986-1-qiwenjie@xiaomi.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260825023925.230986-1-qiwenjie@xiaomi.com> On 08/25, Wenjie Qi wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > Thanks, v3 addresses the two error propagation issues I reported. > > I have one question about successful rollback in a DIRSYNC directory. > f2fs_unlink() runs f2fs_sync_fs() after __do_unlink() succeeds, but > f2fs_symlink() calls __do_unlink() directly and returns without a > checkpoint. DIRSYNC is reachable only when there was no error until then? > > Since f2fs_add_link() has already completed before symlink construction > fails, could a checkpoint between the addition and rollback make the > addition durable while the deletion remains dirty? Should the successful > rollback run f2fs_sync_fs() when IS_DIRSYNC(dir), while keeping the > original construction error as the return value? > > Regards, > Wenjie > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel