From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: don't panic if orphan item already exists Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:35:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20111214153525.GB10175@localhost.localdomain> References: <1323798951-4329-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <4EE7A172.2010105@cfl.rr.com> <20111213190942.GA3602@localhost.localdomain> <4EE804EB.5070209@cn.fujitsu.com> <4EE8707D.7080504@cn.fujitsu.com> <20111214145843.GA1925@localhost.localdomain> <4EE8BD45.7090809@cfl.rr.com> <20111214153438.GA10175@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Phillip Susi , Miao Xie , WuBo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Josef Bacik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111214153438.GA10175@localhost.localdomain> List-ID: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:34:45AM -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, > Sorry for the double reply, my email is being wonky and it didn't look like my original response went out. Josef