On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > Hi, > > I just used xfs_fsr the first time under a 3.8-rc kernel and was > spammed with an enormous amount of "XFS_IOC_SWAPEXT failed: ino=56118: > Invalid argument" messages. > > I found the thread http://marc.info/?t=135727980600001&r=1&w=2 and > went to check the kernel sources for these additional checks, because > I wanted to know what was allowed earlier and is now failing. > > I found commit fb59581404ab7ec5075299065c22cb211a9262a9: > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb59581404ab7ec5075299065c22cb211a9262a9#patch2 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dfrag.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dfrag.c > @@ -246,12 +246,10 @@ xfs_swap_extents( > goto out_unlock; > } > > - if (VN_CACHED(VFS_I(tip)) != 0) { > - error = xfs_flushinval_pages(tip, 0, -1, > - FI_REMAPF_LOCKED); > - if (error) > - goto out_unlock; > - } > + error = -filemap_write_and_wait(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping); > + if (error) > + goto out_unlock; > + truncate_pagecache_range(VFS_I(ip), 0, -1); > > That looks really wrong to me. The old code was calling > xfs_flushinval_pages() for *tip*, but the new code is working on *ip*. > Was that change really intended? Is looks unintentional and is not > mentioned in the commit comment... > > Thanks for looking / correcting me if I'm missing something obvious, > but I can't find a reason for this change... I think you're right - good catch. Can you send the patch with a proper subject, commit message and sign-ofif? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
