On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:35:25PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > @@ -2064,12 +2082,12 @@ xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real( > > if (error) > > goto done; > > } > > - temp = xfs_bmap_worst_indlen(bma->ip, temp); > > - temp2 = xfs_bmap_worst_indlen(bma->ip, temp2); > > - diff = (int)(temp + temp2 - > > - (startblockval(PREV.br_startblock) - > > - (bma->cur ? > > - bma->cur->bc_private.b.allocated : 0))); > > + > > + da_new = startblockval(PREV.br_blockcount) + > > + startblockval(RIGHT.br_blockcount); > > s/br_blockcount/br_startblock/ :) Yes. And I've officially lost all faith in xfstests ever even testing this case in xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real at all. I think it should be really easily testable by creating a large delalloc reservation and then fsyncing out the middle of it. Except of course we don't have a range fsync, and even then the writeback code might cluster it. I might have to come up with a special kernel module to even reproduce this reliably.. -- 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
