* [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction
2019-01-30 6:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] ext4: fix a data corruption problem zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-01-30 6:49 ` zhangyi (F)
2019-02-11 4:24 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] jbd2: discard dirty data when forgetting an un-journalled buffer zhangyi (F)
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: zhangyi (F) @ 2019-01-30 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4; +Cc: tytso, jack, adilger.kernel, yi.zhang, miaoxie
Now, we capture a data corruption problem on ext4 while we're truncating
an extent index block. Imaging that if we are revoking a buffer which
has been journaled by the committing transaction, the buffer's jbddirty
flag will not be cleared in jbd2_journal_forget(), so the commit code
will set the buffer dirty flag again after refile the buffer.
fsx kjournald2
jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
jbd2_journal_revoke commit phase 1~5...
jbd2_journal_forget
belongs to older transaction commit phase 6
jbddirty not clear __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer
__jbd2_journal_unfile_buffer
test_clear_buffer_jbddirty
mark_buffer_dirty
Finally, if the freed extent index block was allocated again as data
block by some other files, it may corrupt the file data after writing
cached pages later, such as during unmount time. (In general,
clean_bdev_aliases() related helpers should be invoked after
re-allocation to prevent the above corruption, but unfortunately we
missed it when zeroout the head of extra extent blocks in
ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents()).
This patch mark buffer as freed and set j_next_transaction to the new
transaction when it already belongs to the committing transaction in
jbd2_journal_forget(), so that commit code knows it should clear dirty
bits when it is done with the buffer.
This problem can be reproduced by xfstests generic/455 easily with
seeds (3246 3247 3248 3249).
Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
index f07f006..f0d8dab 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -1609,14 +1609,21 @@ int jbd2_journal_forget (handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
/* However, if the buffer is still owned by a prior
* (committing) transaction, we can't drop it yet... */
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "belongs to older transaction");
- /* ... but we CAN drop it from the new transaction if we
- * have also modified it since the original commit. */
+ /* ... but we CAN drop it from the new transaction through
+ * marking the buffer as freed and set j_next_transaction to
+ * the new transaction, so that not only the commit code
+ * knows it should clear dirty bits when it is done with the
+ * buffer, but also the buffer can be checkpointed only
+ * after the new transaction commits. */
- if (jh->b_next_transaction) {
- J_ASSERT(jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
+ set_buffer_freed(bh);
+
+ if (!jh->b_next_transaction) {
spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
- jh->b_next_transaction = NULL;
+ jh->b_next_transaction = transaction;
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ } else {
+ J_ASSERT(jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
/*
* only drop a reference if this transaction modified
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-02-11 4:24 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-02-12 12:20 ` zhangyi (F)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2019-02-11 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhangyi (F); +Cc: linux-ext4, jack, adilger.kernel, miaoxie
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:49:37PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> Now, we capture a data corruption problem on ext4 while we're truncating
> an extent index block. Imaging that if we are revoking a buffer which
> has been journaled by the committing transaction, the buffer's jbddirty
> flag will not be cleared in jbd2_journal_forget(), so the commit code
> will set the buffer dirty flag again after refile the buffer.
>
> fsx kjournald2
> jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
> jbd2_journal_revoke commit phase 1~5...
> jbd2_journal_forget
> belongs to older transaction commit phase 6
> jbddirty not clear __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer
> __jbd2_journal_unfile_buffer
> test_clear_buffer_jbddirty
> mark_buffer_dirty
>
> Finally, if the freed extent index block was allocated again as data
> block by some other files, it may corrupt the file data after writing
> cached pages later, such as during unmount time. (In general,
> clean_bdev_aliases() related helpers should be invoked after
> re-allocation to prevent the above corruption, but unfortunately we
> missed it when zeroout the head of extra extent blocks in
> ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents()).
>
> This patch mark buffer as freed and set j_next_transaction to the new
> transaction when it already belongs to the committing transaction in
> jbd2_journal_forget(), so that commit code knows it should clear dirty
> bits when it is done with the buffer.
>
> This problem can be reproduced by xfstests generic/455 easily with
> seeds (3246 3247 3248 3249).
>
> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Thanks, applied.
By the way, I wasn't able to easily reproduce the problem using the
given seeds. Out of curiosity, what sort test system were you using?
(e.g., how many CPU's, how much memory, what kind of storage device,
etc.)
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction
2019-02-11 4:24 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2019-02-12 12:20 ` zhangyi (F)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: zhangyi (F) @ 2019-02-12 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: linux-ext4, jack, adilger.kernel, miaoxie
On 2019/2/11 12:24, Theodore Y. Ts'o Wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:49:37PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
>> Now, we capture a data corruption problem on ext4 while we're truncating
>> an extent index block. Imaging that if we are revoking a buffer which
>> has been journaled by the committing transaction, the buffer's jbddirty
>> flag will not be cleared in jbd2_journal_forget(), so the commit code
>> will set the buffer dirty flag again after refile the buffer.
>>
>> fsx kjournald2
>> jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
>> jbd2_journal_revoke commit phase 1~5...
>> jbd2_journal_forget
>> belongs to older transaction commit phase 6
>> jbddirty not clear __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer
>> __jbd2_journal_unfile_buffer
>> test_clear_buffer_jbddirty
>> mark_buffer_dirty
>>
>> Finally, if the freed extent index block was allocated again as data
>> block by some other files, it may corrupt the file data after writing
>> cached pages later, such as during unmount time. (In general,
>> clean_bdev_aliases() related helpers should be invoked after
>> re-allocation to prevent the above corruption, but unfortunately we
>> missed it when zeroout the head of extra extent blocks in
>> ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents()).
>>
>> This patch mark buffer as freed and set j_next_transaction to the new
>> transaction when it already belongs to the committing transaction in
>> jbd2_journal_forget(), so that commit code knows it should clear dirty
>> bits when it is done with the buffer.
>>
>> This problem can be reproduced by xfstests generic/455 easily with
>> seeds (3246 3247 3248 3249).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> Thanks, applied.
>
> By the way, I wasn't able to easily reproduce the problem using the
> given seeds. Out of curiosity, what sort test system were you using?
> (e.g., how many CPU's, how much memory, what kind of storage device,
> etc.)
Yes, I was also not able to reproduce the problem quite easily, because
it depends on block allocation logic. So in order to increase the
probability, I choice a relatively small prartition(5GB).
I reprocude this problem on a x86_64 kvm virtual machine which have 16
cores, 16GB memory and two 5GB virtio block devices(base on ssd RIAD).
Thanks,
Yi.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4 2/4] jbd2: discard dirty data when forgetting an un-journalled buffer
2019-01-30 6:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] ext4: fix a data corruption problem zhangyi (F)
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-01-30 6:49 ` zhangyi (F)
2019-02-11 4:31 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ext4: cleanup clean_bdev_aliases() calls zhangyi (F)
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ext4: convert ext4_split_extent() to return requested length zhangyi (F)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: zhangyi (F) @ 2019-01-30 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4; +Cc: tytso, jack, adilger.kernel, yi.zhang, miaoxie
We do not unmap and clear dirty flag when forgetting a buffer without
journal or does not belongs to any transaction, so the invalid dirty
data may still be written to the disk later. It's fine if the
corresponding block is never used before the next mount, and it's also
fine that we invoke clean_bdev_aliases() related functions to unmap
the block device mapping when re-allocating such freed block as data
block. But this logic is somewhat fragile and risky that may lead to
data corruption if we forget to clean bdev aliases. So, It's better to
discard dirty data during forget time.
We have been already handled all the cases of forgetting journalled
buffer, this patch deal with the remaining two cases.
- buffer is not journalled yet,
- buffer is journalled but doesn't belongs to any transaction.
We invoke __bforget() instead of __brelese() when forgetting an
un-journalled buffer in jbd2_journal_forget(). After this patch we can
remove all clean_bdev_aliases() related calls in ext4.
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
index f0d8dab..a43b630 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -1597,9 +1597,7 @@ int jbd2_journal_forget (handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
__jbd2_journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
if (!buffer_jbd(bh)) {
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
- jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
- __bforget(bh);
- goto drop;
+ goto not_jbd;
}
}
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
@@ -1632,9 +1630,40 @@ int jbd2_journal_forget (handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
if (was_modified)
drop_reserve = 1;
}
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Finally, if the buffer is not belongs to any
+ * transaction, we can just drop it now if it has no
+ * checkpoint.
+ */
+ spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ if (!jh->b_cp_transaction) {
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "belongs to none transaction");
+ spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ goto not_jbd;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Otherwise, if the buffer has been written to disk,
+ * it is safe to remove the checkpoint and drop it.
+ */
+ if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+ __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
+ spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ goto not_jbd;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * The buffer is still not written to disk, we should
+ * attach this buffer to current transaction so that the
+ * buffer can be checkpointed only after the current
+ * transaction commits.
+ */
+ clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
+ __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Forget);
+ spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
}
-not_jbd:
jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
__brelse(bh);
drop:
@@ -1643,6 +1672,11 @@ int jbd2_journal_forget (handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
handle->h_buffer_credits++;
}
return err;
+
+not_jbd:
+ jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
+ __bforget(bh);
+ goto drop;
}
/**
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] jbd2: discard dirty data when forgetting an un-journalled buffer
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] jbd2: discard dirty data when forgetting an un-journalled buffer zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-02-11 4:31 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2019-02-11 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhangyi (F); +Cc: linux-ext4, jack, adilger.kernel, miaoxie
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:49:38PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> We do not unmap and clear dirty flag when forgetting a buffer without
> journal or does not belongs to any transaction, so the invalid dirty
> data may still be written to the disk later. It's fine if the
> corresponding block is never used before the next mount, and it's also
> fine that we invoke clean_bdev_aliases() related functions to unmap
> the block device mapping when re-allocating such freed block as data
> block. But this logic is somewhat fragile and risky that may lead to
> data corruption if we forget to clean bdev aliases. So, It's better to
> discard dirty data during forget time.
>
> We have been already handled all the cases of forgetting journalled
> buffer, this patch deal with the remaining two cases.
>
> - buffer is not journalled yet,
> - buffer is journalled but doesn't belongs to any transaction.
>
> We invoke __bforget() instead of __brelese() when forgetting an
> un-journalled buffer in jbd2_journal_forget(). After this patch we can
> remove all clean_bdev_aliases() related calls in ext4.
>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Thanks, applied.
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4 3/4] ext4: cleanup clean_bdev_aliases() calls
2019-01-30 6:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] ext4: fix a data corruption problem zhangyi (F)
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] jbd2: make sure dirty flag is cleared while revorking a buffer which belongs to older transaction zhangyi (F)
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] jbd2: discard dirty data when forgetting an un-journalled buffer zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-01-30 6:49 ` zhangyi (F)
2019-02-11 4:38 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ext4: convert ext4_split_extent() to return requested length zhangyi (F)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: zhangyi (F) @ 2019-01-30 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4; +Cc: tytso, jack, adilger.kernel, yi.zhang, miaoxie
Now, we have already handle all cases of forgetting buffer in
jbd2_journal_forget(), the buffer should not be mapped to blockdevice
when reallocating it. So this patch remove all clean_bdev_aliases() and
clean_bdev_bh_alias() calls which were invoked by ext4 explicitly.
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 12 +-----------
fs/ext4/inode.c | 7 -------
fs/ext4/page-io.c | 4 +---
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index a054f51..ffb72d8 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -4068,18 +4068,8 @@ ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
} else
allocated = ret;
map->m_flags |= EXT4_MAP_NEW;
- /*
- * if we allocated more blocks than requested
- * we need to make sure we unmap the extra block
- * allocated. The actual needed block will get
- * unmapped later when we find the buffer_head marked
- * new.
- */
- if (allocated > map->m_len) {
- clean_bdev_aliases(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, newblock + map->m_len,
- allocated - map->m_len);
+ if (allocated > map->m_len)
allocated = map->m_len;
- }
map->m_len = allocated;
map_out:
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index e7adf87..3068c83 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -678,8 +678,6 @@ int ext4_map_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
if (flags & EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_ZERO &&
map->m_flags & EXT4_MAP_MAPPED &&
map->m_flags & EXT4_MAP_NEW) {
- clean_bdev_aliases(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, map->m_pblk,
- map->m_len);
ret = ext4_issue_zeroout(inode, map->m_lblk,
map->m_pblk, map->m_len);
if (ret) {
@@ -1194,7 +1192,6 @@ static int ext4_block_write_begin(struct page *page, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
if (err)
break;
if (buffer_new(bh)) {
- clean_bdev_bh_alias(bh);
if (PageUptodate(page)) {
clear_buffer_new(bh);
set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
@@ -2490,10 +2487,6 @@ static int mpage_map_one_extent(handle_t *handle, struct mpage_da_data *mpd)
}
BUG_ON(map->m_len == 0);
- if (map->m_flags & EXT4_MAP_NEW) {
- clean_bdev_aliases(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, map->m_pblk,
- map->m_len);
- }
return 0;
}
diff --git a/fs/ext4/page-io.c b/fs/ext4/page-io.c
index 2aa62d5..1559946 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/page-io.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/page-io.c
@@ -467,10 +467,8 @@ int ext4_bio_write_page(struct ext4_io_submit *io,
ext4_io_submit(io);
continue;
}
- if (buffer_new(bh)) {
+ if (buffer_new(bh))
clear_buffer_new(bh);
- clean_bdev_bh_alias(bh);
- }
set_buffer_async_write(bh);
nr_to_submit++;
} while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] ext4: cleanup clean_bdev_aliases() calls
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ext4: cleanup clean_bdev_aliases() calls zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-02-11 4:38 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2019-02-11 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhangyi (F); +Cc: linux-ext4, jack, adilger.kernel, miaoxie
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:49:39PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> Now, we have already handle all cases of forgetting buffer in
> jbd2_journal_forget(), the buffer should not be mapped to blockdevice
> when reallocating it. So this patch remove all clean_bdev_aliases() and
> clean_bdev_bh_alias() calls which were invoked by ext4 explicitly.
>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Thanks, applied.
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4 4/4] ext4: convert ext4_split_extent() to return requested length
2019-01-30 6:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] ext4: fix a data corruption problem zhangyi (F)
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ext4: cleanup clean_bdev_aliases() calls zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-01-30 6:49 ` zhangyi (F)
2019-02-11 4:49 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: zhangyi (F) @ 2019-01-30 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4; +Cc: tytso, jack, adilger.kernel, yi.zhang, miaoxie
After we remove clean_bdev_aliases() calls which used to unmap extra
blocks in ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents(), return extra initialized
region in ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized() is no longer needed, so
in order to simplify logic, this patch convert to return the requested
size instead.
Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index ffb72d8..ffe9671 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -3456,9 +3456,8 @@ static int ext4_split_extent(handle_t *handle,
* of the logical span [map->m_lblk, map->m_lblk + map->m_len).
*
* Post-conditions on success:
- * - the returned value is the number of blocks beyond map->l_lblk
- * that are allocated and initialized.
- * It is guaranteed to be >= map->m_len.
+ * - The returned value is the minimum number of requested blocks or
+ * initialized blocks. It is guaranteed to be <= map->m_len.
*/
static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
struct inode *inode,
@@ -3700,7 +3699,6 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
split_map.m_len += split_map.m_lblk - ee_block;
split_map.m_lblk = ee_block;
- allocated = map->m_len;
}
}
@@ -3709,6 +3707,9 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
if (err > 0)
err = 0;
out:
+ if (allocated > map->m_len)
+ allocated = map->m_len;
+
/* If we have gotten a failure, don't zero out status tree */
if (!err) {
err = ext4_zeroout_es(inode, &zero_ex1);
@@ -4065,11 +4066,10 @@ ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
if (ret <= 0) {
err = ret;
goto out2;
- } else
- allocated = ret;
+ }
+
+ allocated = ret;
map->m_flags |= EXT4_MAP_NEW;
- if (allocated > map->m_len)
- allocated = map->m_len;
map->m_len = allocated;
map_out:
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] ext4: convert ext4_split_extent() to return requested length
2019-01-30 6:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ext4: convert ext4_split_extent() to return requested length zhangyi (F)
@ 2019-02-11 4:49 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2019-02-11 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhangyi (F); +Cc: linux-ext4, jack, adilger.kernel, miaoxie
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:49:40PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> After we remove clean_bdev_aliases() calls which used to unmap extra
> blocks in ext4_ext_handle_unwritten_extents(), return extra initialized
> region in ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized() is no longer needed, so
> in order to simplify logic, this patch convert to return the requested
> size instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Thanks, applied.
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread