On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 06:03:54PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > @@ -1785,6 +1785,28 @@ xfs_qm_vop_chown( > xfs_trans_mod_dquot(tp, newdq, bfield, ip->i_d.di_nblocks); > xfs_trans_mod_dquot(tp, newdq, XFS_TRANS_DQ_ICOUNT, 1); > > + /* > + * Back when we made quota reservations for the chown, we reserved the > + * ondisk blocks + delalloc blocks with the new dquot. Now that we've > + * switched the dquots, decrease the new dquot's block reservation > + * (having already bumped up the real counter) so that we don't have > + * any reservation to give back when we commit. > + */ > + xfs_trans_mod_dquot(tp, newdq, XFS_TRANS_DQ_RES_BLKS, > + -ip->i_delayed_blks); > + > + /* > + * Give the incore reservation for delalloc blocks back to the old > + * dquot. We don't normally handle delalloc quota reservations > + * transactionally, so just lock the dquot and subtract from the > + * reservation. We've dirtied the transaction, so it's too late to > + * turn back now. > + */ > + tp->t_flags |= XFS_TRANS_DIRTY; > + xfs_dqlock(prevdq); > + prevdq->q_blk.reserved -= ip->i_delayed_blks; > + xfs_dqunlock(prevdq); Any particular reason for this order of operations vs grouping it with the existing prevdq and newdq sections? Otherwise loooks fine: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
