Hi Ted:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out the arithmetic problems in my patch. Yours
>> below looks good to me.
>
> Hi Curt,
>
> Can you do me a favor and send out a full patch with Aneesh's
> correction?
Here it is. This is against 2.6.33-rc2, if that makes a difference. Thanks!
====================================================================
This fixes a bug in which new blocks returned from an extent created with
ext4_ext_zeroout() can have dirty metadata still associated with them.
This patch was originally by Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
Signed-off-by: Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff -uprN orig/fs/ext4/extents.c new/fs/ext4/extents.c
--- orig/fs/ext4/extents.c 2009-12-29 14:59:12.000000000 -0800
+++ new/fs/ext4/extents.c 2009-12-29 15:18:43.000000000 -0800
@@ -3023,6 +3023,14 @@ out:
return err;
}
+static void unmap_underlying_metadata_blocks(struct block_device *bdev,
+ sector_t block, int count)
+{
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
+ unmap_underlying_metadata(bdev, block + i);
+}
+
static int
ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
ext4_lblk_t iblock, unsigned int max_blocks,
@@ -3098,6 +3106,18 @@ out:
} else
allocated = ret;
set_buffer_new(bh_result);
+ /*
+ * if we allocated more blocks than requested
+ * we need to make sure we unmap the extra block
+ * allocated. The actual needed block will get
+ * unmapped later when we find the buffer_head marked
+ * new.
+ */
+ if (allocated > max_blocks) {
+ unmap_underlying_metadata_blocks(inode->i_sb->s_bdev,
+ newblock + max_blocks,
+ allocated - max_blocks);
+ }
map_out:
set_buffer_mapped(bh_result);
out1:
--
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
