On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:52:56AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > You can run into this problem where if somebody is fsyncing and writing out > the existing extents you will have removed the extent map from the em tree, > but it's still valid for the current fsync so we go ahead and write it. The > problem is we unconditionally try to merge it back into the em tree, but if > we've removed it from the em tree that will cause problems. So fix this by > only trying to merge it in if it is still a part of the tree. Thanks, >
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> > --- > fs/btrfs/extent_map.c | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > index ed88f5e..9759911 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > @@ -289,7 +289,8 @@ out: > void clear_em_logging(struct extent_map_tree *tree, struct extent_map *em) > { > clear_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_LOGGING, &em->flags); > - try_merge_map(tree, em); > + if (em->in_tree) > + try_merge_map(tree, em); > } > > /** > -- > 1.7.7.6 > > -- > 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
