On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The XFS_BTCUR_BPRV_WASDEL flag is supposed to indicate that we are > converting a delayed allocation to a real one, which isn't the case > in xfs_bunmapi. Setting it could theoretically lead to misaccounting > here, but it's unlikely that we ever hit it in practice. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > index 4867df0c1bcd..b5b30415aa2b 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > @@ -5725,11 +5725,7 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( > XFS_QMOPT_RES_REGBLKS); > } > ip->i_delayed_blks -= del.br_blockcount; > - if (cur) > - cur->bc_private.b.flags |= > - XFS_BTCUR_BPRV_WASDEL; > - } else if (cur) > - cur->bc_private.b.flags &= ~XFS_BTCUR_BPRV_WASDEL; > + } Ok, this flag is checked in xfs_bmbt_alloc_block() which is not a codepath we should hit when removing a delalloc extent. Indeed, the del_extent() call below appropriately skips any cur actions based on the delalloc state. This seems fine to me: Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > > error = xfs_bmap_del_extent(ip, tp, &lastx, dfops, cur, &del, > &tmp_logflags, whichfork, flags); > -- > 2.11.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
