On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 05:15:28AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 01:56:27PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > I wonder if there are multiple problems involved here? Eric, it seems > > possible that your reproducer is exercising a similar, though unrelated > > codepath. > > Note that Aneesh has pubished two patches which insert a call to > ext4_discard_preallocations(). One is a patch which inserts it into > fs/inode.c's truncate path (for direct/indirect-mapped inodes) and one > which is patch which inserts it into fs/extents.c truncate path (for > extent-mapped inodes). As near as I can tell both patches are > necessary, and it looks to me like they should be combined into a > single patch, since commit 487caeef9 affects both truncate paths. > Aneesh, do you concur? > We need only the patch that drop prealloc space in ext4_truncate_restart_trans ext4_ext_truncate_extend_restart calls ext4_truncate_restart_trans. So adding the prealloc space dropping in ext4_truncate_restart_trans should handle both direct/indirect-mapped inode and extent-mapped inodes. -aneesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
