On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 03:58:51 PM Liu Bo wrote:
> Commit "d0b7da88 Btrfs: btrfs_page_mkwrite: Reserve space in sectorsized units"
> did this, but btrfs_lookup_ordered_range expects a 'length' rather than a
> 'page_end'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Is this a candidate for stable?
>
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 4e02426..366cf0b 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -9023,7 +9023,7 @@ int btrfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> * we can't set the delalloc bits if there are pending ordered
> * extents. Drop our locks and wait for them to finish
> */
> - ordered = btrfs_lookup_ordered_range(inode, page_start, page_end);
> + ordered = btrfs_lookup_ordered_range(inode, page_start, PAGE_SIZE);
> if (ordered) {
> unlock_extent_cached(io_tree, page_start, page_end,
> &cached_state, GFP_NOFS);
>
Thanks for fixing this,
Reviewed-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As for the question about whether this commit should be merged into the stable
trees ... I am not sure about that since I don't notice any sort of filesystem
corruption that can be caused by the current code i.e. With the existing code,
apart from any ordered extents that map the page in question, we are most
likely to be *unnecessarily* starting i/o on ordered extents that don't map
the file offset range covered by the page. Chris, Josef or David, Please let
us know your thoughts on this.
--
chandan
--
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
