On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:34:45PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > Thanks for coding this up, I've checked the code, these messages can > be fixed by the following, please check if it works on your side :) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > index 1b319df..1688669 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > @@ -3895,7 +3913,7 @@ int extent_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct > fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo, > last_for_get_extent = isize; > } > > - lock_extent_bits(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start, start + len, 0, > + lock_extent_bits(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start, start + len - 1, 0, > &cached_state); > > em = get_extent_skip_holes(inode, start, last_for_get_extent, > @@ -3982,7 +4000,7 @@ int extent_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct > fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo, > out_free: > free_extent_map(em); > out: > - unlock_extent_cached(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start, start + len, > + unlock_extent_cached(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start, start + len - 1, > &cached_state, GFP_NOFS); > return ret; > } can you please resend this as a proper patch? I'm sending the debugging helper and found out that this is still not fixed. You can add my Tested-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> -- 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
