From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760650AbYGKTWU (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:22:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758821AbYGKTT0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:19:26 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53167 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758709AbYGKTTY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:19:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:18:50 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeff Mahoney Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ReiserFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs: discard prealloc in reiserfs_delete_inode Message-Id: <20080711121850.dfd60681.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4873B3D2.1090101@suse.com> References: <4873B3D2.1090101@suse.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:37:06 -0400 Jeff Mahoney wrote: > With the removal of struct file from the xattr code, reiserfs_file_release() > isn't used anymore, so the prealloc isn't discarded. This causes hangs > later down the line. > > This patch adds it to reiserfs_delete_inode. In most cases it will be > a no-op due to it already having been called, but will avoid hangs with xattrs. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney > --- > fs/reiserfs/inode.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > --- a/fs/reiserfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/reiserfs/inode.c > @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ void reiserfs_delete_inode(struct inode > goto out; > reiserfs_update_inode_transaction(inode); > > + reiserfs_discard_prealloc(&th, inode); > + > err = reiserfs_delete_object(&th, inode); > > /* Do quota update inside a transaction for journaled quotas. We must do that Can you please remind us when "the removal of struct file from the xattr code" happened? Because hangs aren't good, and 2.6.25 might want this.