Re: [PATCH RFC] Btrfs: fix confusing edquot happening case
On 15.04.2013 13:43, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hello Arne,
>
>> On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>> Step to reproduce:
>>> mkfs.btrfs
>>> mount
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=//data bs=1M count=10
>>> sync
>>> btrfs quota enable
>>> btrfs qgroup create 0/5
>>> btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5
>>> rm -f //data
>>> sync
>>> btrfs qgroup show
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=data bs=1M count=1
>>>
>>> From the perspective of users, qgroup's referenced or referenced
>>>
>>> is negative,But user can not continue to write data! a workaround
>>> way is to cast u64 to int64 when doing qgroup reservation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
>>> ---
>>> This confusing edquot may also happen after Jan's qgroup
>>> rescan has been implemented.
>>> ---
>>> fs/btrfs/qgroup.c |4 ++--
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>>> index b44124d..0178223 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>>> @@ -1523,14 +1523,14 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_reserve(struct btrfs_root *root,
>>> u64 num_bytes)
>>> qg = (struct btrfs_qgroup *)(uintptr_t)unode->aux;
>>>
>>> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_RFER) &&
>>> - qg->reserved + qg->rfer + num_bytes >
>>> + qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->rfer + num_bytes >
>>
>> why not use s64 instead of signed long long? Otherwise this is the right way
>> to
>> solve this.
>
> Yeah,V2 is coming. By the way, do you mind that i add Acked-by: Arne Jasen
> ?
You can add a Reviewed-by: Arne Jansen
Thanks,
Arne
>
> Thanks,
> Wang
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arne
>>
>>> qg->max_rfer) {
>>> ret = -EDQUOT;
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_EXCL) &&
>>> - qg->reserved + qg->excl + num_bytes >
>>> + qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->excl + num_bytes >
>>> qg->max_excl) {
>>> ret = -EDQUOT;
>>> goto out;
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
>> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH RFC] Btrfs: fix confusing edquot happening case
Hello Arne,
> On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> Step to reproduce:
>> mkfs.btrfs
>> mount
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=//data bs=1M count=10
>> sync
>> btrfs quota enable
>> btrfs qgroup create 0/5
>> btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5
>> rm -f //data
>> sync
>> btrfs qgroup show
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=data bs=1M count=1
>>
>> From the perspective of users, qgroup's referenced or referenced
>>
>> is negative,But user can not continue to write data! a workaround
>> way is to cast u64 to int64 when doing qgroup reservation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
>> ---
>> This confusing edquot may also happen after Jan's qgroup
>> rescan has been implemented.
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/qgroup.c |4 ++--
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> index b44124d..0178223 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> @@ -1523,14 +1523,14 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_reserve(struct btrfs_root *root,
>> u64 num_bytes)
>> qg = (struct btrfs_qgroup *)(uintptr_t)unode->aux;
>>
>> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_RFER) &&
>> -qg->reserved + qg->rfer + num_bytes >
>> +qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->rfer + num_bytes >
>
> why not use s64 instead of signed long long? Otherwise this is the right way
> to
> solve this.
Yeah,V2 is coming. By the way, do you mind that i add Acked-by: Arne Jasen
?
Thanks,
Wang
>
> Thanks,
> Arne
>
>> qg->max_rfer) {
>> ret = -EDQUOT;
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_EXCL) &&
>> -qg->reserved + qg->excl + num_bytes >
>> +qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->excl + num_bytes >
>> qg->max_excl) {
>> ret = -EDQUOT;
>> goto out;
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH RFC] Btrfs: fix confusing edquot happening case
On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Step to reproduce:
> mkfs.btrfs
> mount
> dd if=/dev/zero of=//data bs=1M count=10
> sync
> btrfs quota enable
> btrfs qgroup create 0/5
> btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5
> rm -f //data
> sync
> btrfs qgroup show
> dd if=/dev/zero of=data bs=1M count=1
>
> From the perspective of users, qgroup's referenced or referenced
>
> is negative,But user can not continue to write data! a workaround
> way is to cast u64 to int64 when doing qgroup reservation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
> ---
> This confusing edquot may also happen after Jan's qgroup
> rescan has been implemented.
> ---
> fs/btrfs/qgroup.c |4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> index b44124d..0178223 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> @@ -1523,14 +1523,14 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_reserve(struct btrfs_root *root, u64
> num_bytes)
> qg = (struct btrfs_qgroup *)(uintptr_t)unode->aux;
>
> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_RFER) &&
> - qg->reserved + qg->rfer + num_bytes >
> + qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->rfer + num_bytes >
why not use s64 instead of signed long long? Otherwise this is the right way to
solve this.
Thanks,
Arne
> qg->max_rfer) {
> ret = -EDQUOT;
> goto out;
> }
>
> if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_EXCL) &&
> - qg->reserved + qg->excl + num_bytes >
> + qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->excl + num_bytes >
> qg->max_excl) {
> ret = -EDQUOT;
> goto out;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH RFC] Btrfs: fix confusing edquot happening case
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs
mount
dd if=/dev/zero of=//data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable
btrfs qgroup create 0/5
btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5
rm -f //data
sync
btrfs qgroup show
dd if=/dev/zero of=data bs=1M count=1
>From the perspective of users, qgroup's referenced or referenced
is negative,But user can not continue to write data! a workaround
way is to cast u64 to int64 when doing qgroup reservation.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
This confusing edquot may also happen after Jan's qgroup
rescan has been implemented.
---
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
index b44124d..0178223 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
@@ -1523,14 +1523,14 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_reserve(struct btrfs_root *root, u64
num_bytes)
qg = (struct btrfs_qgroup *)(uintptr_t)unode->aux;
if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_RFER) &&
- qg->reserved + qg->rfer + num_bytes >
+ qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->rfer + num_bytes >
qg->max_rfer) {
ret = -EDQUOT;
goto out;
}
if ((qg->lim_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_MAX_EXCL) &&
- qg->reserved + qg->excl + num_bytes >
+ qg->reserved + (signed long long)qg->excl + num_bytes >
qg->max_excl) {
ret = -EDQUOT;
goto out;
--
1.7.7.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
