On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 01:42:30PM +0000, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -1897,15 +1899,45 @@ static inline int btrfs_start_delalloc_flush(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> * from already being in a transaction and our join_transaction doesn't
> * have to re-take the fs freeze lock.
> */
> - if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FLUSHONCOMMIT))
> + if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FLUSHONCOMMIT)) {
> writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
> + } else {
> + struct btrfs_pending_snapshot *pending;
> + struct list_head *head = &trans->transaction->pending_snapshots;
> +
> + /*
> + * Flush dellaloc for any root that is going to be snapshotted.
> + * This is done to avoid a corrupted version of files, in the
> + * snapshots, that had both buffered and direct IO writes (even
> + * if they were done sequentially) due to an unordered update of
> + * the inode's size on disk.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(pending, head, list)
> + btrfs_start_delalloc_snapshot(pending->root);
> + }
A diff would be better than words, incremental on top of your patch:
@@ -1912,8 +1912,15 @@ static inline int btrfs_start_delalloc_flush(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
* if they were done sequentially) due to an unordered update of
* the inode's size on disk.
*/
- list_for_each_entry(pending, head, list)
- btrfs_start_delalloc_snapshot(pending->root);
+ list_for_each_entry(pending, head, list) {
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = btrfs_start_delalloc_snapshot(pending->root);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
+ break;
+ }
+ }
}
return 0;
}
---
Making a switch by the exact error is probably not necessary and wouldn't be
future proof anyway.
