From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
To: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs, add test for snapshoting after file write + truncate
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:45:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5464D20B.3040101@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414323543-31557-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@suse.com>
On 10/26/2014 07:39 AM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> Regression test for a btrfs issue where if right after the snapshot
> creation ioctl started, a file write followed by a file truncate
> happened, with both operations increasing the file's size, the created
> snapshot would capture an inconsistent state of the file system tree.
> That state reflected the file truncation but it didn't reflect the
> write operation, and left a gap between two file extent items (and
> that gap corresponded to the total or a partial area of the write
> operation's range).
>
> This issue was fixed by the following linux kernel patch:
>
> Btrfs: fix snapshot inconsistency after a file write followed by truncate
>
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Ran with and without the patch applied to make sure it did the right
thing, the test looks sane. Thanks for this
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
To: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>, <fstests@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs, add test for snapshoting after file write + truncate
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:45:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5464D20B.3040101@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414323543-31557-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@suse.com>
On 10/26/2014 07:39 AM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> Regression test for a btrfs issue where if right after the snapshot
> creation ioctl started, a file write followed by a file truncate
> happened, with both operations increasing the file's size, the created
> snapshot would capture an inconsistent state of the file system tree.
> That state reflected the file truncation but it didn't reflect the
> write operation, and left a gap between two file extent items (and
> that gap corresponded to the total or a partial area of the write
> operation's range).
>
> This issue was fixed by the following linux kernel patch:
>
> Btrfs: fix snapshot inconsistency after a file write followed by truncate
>
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Ran with and without the patch applied to make sure it did the right
thing, the test looks sane. Thanks for this
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-13 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-21 10:13 [PATCH] fstests: btrfs, add test for snapshoting after file write + truncate Filipe Manana
2014-10-26 11:39 ` [PATCH v2] " Filipe Manana
2014-11-10 1:45 ` Dave Chinner
2014-11-13 15:45 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2014-11-13 15:45 ` Josef Bacik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5464D20B.3040101@fb.com \
--to=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.