On wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:34:45 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: >> On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> There is no "underlying bug", there is a shitty situation, the shitty >>> situation >> >> Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere then. You add the orphan >> item to make sure that the truncate will be finalized even if the >> system crashes before the transaction commits right? So if >> truncate() fails with -ENOSPC, then you shouldn't be trying to >> finalize the truncate on the next mount, should you ( because the >> call did not succeed )? >> > > Yes because otherwise we'll leak space since the i_size has been updated > already. The other option is to make btrfs_truncate_inode_items update i_size > as we truncate so if it fails we can delete the orphan item and then update > the > inode with the new i_size, that way we don't leave the orphan item on disk and > we don't leak space. I'll see how doable this is. Thanks,
Agree. I have made a patch based on this idea, which is under test. Thanks Miao > > Josef > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
