On 11/07/2014 05:01 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
V2: Added missing btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() call for the case where a replace
happens for an item with no other xattrs and the new xattr value size is
the same as the old xattr value size;
Made btrfs_search_slot not release the path if it returns EOVERFLOW (from
split_leaf), so that we can get the current size of the item when doing
the replace and extend the leaf to a size smaller then what we passed to
btrfs_search_slot if the xattr exists in the item (and the new extend size
is new_size - old_size, excluding xattr's name and sizeof struct btrfs_dir_item).
Stupid Question Here: How does this "replace and extend" affect the
whole copy-on-write paradigm. Aren't you now overwriting the contents of
the old data instead of doing a COW?
Not a passive-aggressive commentary question, I genuinely don't
understand this piece of code so I am seeking a learning opportunity.
--
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
