From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:11744 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935504AbdLSAMw (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:12:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:12:02 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: track cowblocks separately in i_flags Message-ID: <20171219001202.GH4094@dastard> References: <151335786780.26575.15542999972223359181.stgit@magnolia> <151335787965.26575.17711793213679430025.stgit@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <151335787965.26575.17711793213679430025.stgit@magnolia> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:11:19AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong > > The EOFBLOCKS/COWBLOCKS tags are totally separate things, so track them > with separate i_flags. Right now we're abusing IEOFBLOCKS for both, > which is totally bogus because we won't tag the inode with COWBLOCKS if > IEOFBLOCKS was set by a previous tagging of the inode with EOFBLOCKS. > Found by wiring up clonerange to fsstress in xfs/017. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong Looks reasonable. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com