On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:36:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Currently these are the only ones that should exist at this point anyway, > but with O_ATOMIC writes we might have legit extents around in the COW > fork even when clearing the reflink flag. Hmmm... so I assume that the premise of the O_ATOMIC write series is still that we use the cow fork to stage writes until fsync, and the presence of a cow fork is now separate from the reflink inode flag? Therefore, it's perfectly legit to have a !reflink inode with real extents sitting in the cow fork and legit to be clearing the reflink iflag with real extents sitting around. I think this is ok but I'd sure like to see the atomic writes patches before I pull this one in. --D > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c > index 85d3379a81df..8ab9c73b430e 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c > @@ -1570,7 +1570,7 @@ xfs_reflink_clear_inode_flag( > * We didn't find any shared blocks so turn off the reflink flag. > * First, get rid of any leftover CoW mappings. > */ > - error = xfs_reflink_cancel_cow_blocks(ip, tpp, 0, NULLFILEOFF, true); > + error = xfs_reflink_cancel_cow_blocks(ip, tpp, 0, NULLFILEOFF, false); > if (error) > return error; > > -- > 2.14.2 > > -- > 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
