[PATCH] udf: Do not decrement i_blocks when freeing indirect extent block

[Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>]

Indirect extent block is not accounted in i_blocks during allocation
thus we should not decrement i_blocks when we are freeing such block
during truncation.

Reported-by: Steve Nickel <snickel58@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
---
 fs/udf/truncate.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

 I have queued this UDF fix to my tree and plan to send it to Linus in the
next merge window.

diff --git a/fs/udf/truncate.c b/fs/udf/truncate.c
index 4b98fee..8a9657d 100644
--- a/fs/udf/truncate.c
+++ b/fs/udf/truncate.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ void udf_truncate_extents(struct inode *inode)
 				/* We managed to free all extents in the
 				 * indirect extent - free it too */
 				BUG_ON(!epos.bh);
-				udf_free_blocks(sb, inode, &epos.block,
+				udf_free_blocks(sb, NULL, &epos.block,
 						0, indirect_ext_len);
 			} else if (!epos.bh) {
 				iinfo->i_lenAlloc = lenalloc;
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void udf_truncate_extents(struct inode *inode)
 
 	if (indirect_ext_len) {
 		BUG_ON(!epos.bh);
-		udf_free_blocks(sb, inode, &epos.block, 0, indirect_ext_len);
+		udf_free_blocks(sb, NULL, &epos.block, 0, indirect_ext_len);
 	} else if (!epos.bh) {
 		iinfo->i_lenAlloc = lenalloc;
 		mark_inode_dirty(inode);
-- 
1.7.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html