On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:34:48PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:30:59PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > When a directory gets unlinked, ext4_forget() is called on any buffer > > heads corresponding to its data blocks. Data blocks from directories > > must be treated as metadata, so that they are revoked by > > jbd2_journal_revoke, and not just forgotten via ext4_journal_forget(). > > > > Thanks to Curt Wohlgemuth for pointing out potential problems in this > > area. > > > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/ext4/inode.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c > > index 13de1dd..639bb84 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c > > @@ -97,6 +97,10 @@ int ext4_forget(handle_t *handle, int is_metadata, struct inode *inode, > > bh, is_metadata, inode->i_mode, > > test_opt(inode->i_sb, DATA_FLAGS)); > > > > + /* Directory blocks must be treated as metadata */ > > + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) > > + is_metadata = 1; > > + > > /* Never use the revoke function if we are doing full data > > * journaling: there is no need to, and a V1 superblock won't > > * support it. Otherwise, only skip the revoke on un-journaled > > I guess we need to make sure we call ext4_forget with correct is_metadata values. I > did the below patch. The xattr changes in the patch should be split as a separate one. > I am not sure why we do a get_bh there. The callers of ext4_xattr_release_block is also doing a brelse on the buffer_head. So we need that get_bh. -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
