On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:51:47 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:15:53PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> Btrfsck report error 100 after the 83th case of xfstests was run, it means >> the i_size of the file is wrong. >> >> The reason of this bug is that: >> Btrfs increased i_size of the file at the beginning, but it failed to expand >> the file, and failed to update the i_size to the old size because there is no >> enough space in the file system, so we found a wrong i_size. >> >> This patch fixes this bug by updating the i_size just when we pass the file >> expanding and get enough space to update i-node. > > Hmmm, have you tested this one with fsx-linux? It should be ok to call > truncate_pagecache before bumping i_size in this case, since we > shouldn't have pages past i_size. Yes, I have tested it. Everything is OK. > But, truncate_pagecache does expect i_size to be accurate before the > call. OK, I will modify my patch. Thanks for your comment. Miao > > -chris > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
