On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 01:38:25PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> When adding a new data extent (without modifying an inode's existing
> extents) the extent count increases only by 1. This commit checks for
> extent count overflow in such cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandanrlinux@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 8 ++++++++
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h | 2 ++
> fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 5 +++++
> fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c | 8 +++++++-
> fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 5 +++++
> fs/xfs/xfs_rtalloc.c | 5 +++++
> 6 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> index 9c40d5971035..e64f645415b1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> @@ -4527,6 +4527,14 @@ xfs_bmapi_convert_delalloc(
> return error;
>
> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> +
> + if (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK) {
Should we add COW fork special casing to xfs_iext_count_may_overflow
instead?
> + error = xfs_iext_count_may_overflow(ip, whichfork,
> + XFS_IEXT_ADD_CNT);
I find the XFS_IEXT_ADD_CNT define very confusing. An explicit 1 passed
for a counter parameter makes a lot more sense to me.
