We could have possibly added an extent_op to the locked_ref while we dropped
locked_ref->lock, so check for this case as well and loop around. Otherwise we
could lose flag updates which would lead to extent tree corruption. Thanks,
cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index a050e83..af5a656 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -2448,7 +2448,8 @@ static noinline int __btrfs_run_delayed_refs(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
spin_unlock(&locked_ref->lock);
spin_lock(&delayed_refs->lock);
spin_lock(&locked_ref->lock);
- if (rb_first(&locked_ref->ref_root)) {
+ if (rb_first(&locked_ref->ref_root) ||
+ locked_ref->extent_op) {
spin_unlock(&locked_ref->lock);
spin_unlock(&delayed_refs->lock);
continue;
--
1.8.3.1
--
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
