On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:02:22AM +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:57:48 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > btrfs/022 was spitting a warning for the case that we exceed the quota. If > > we > > fail to make our quota reservation we need to clean up our data space > > reservation. Thanks, > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > index 03da2f6..d72eaae 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > @@ -4286,13 +4286,10 @@ int btrfs_check_data_free_space(struct inode > > *inode, u64 start, u64 len) > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > - /* > > - * Use new btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data to reserve precious data space > > - * > > - * TODO: Find a good method to avoid reserve data space for NOCOW > > - * range, but don't impact performance on quota disable case. > > - */ > > + /* Use new btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data to reserve precious data space. */ > > ret = btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data(inode, start, len); > > + if (ret) > > + btrfs_free_reserved_data_space_noquota(inode, start, len); > > return ret; > > } > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > This came up before, though slightly different: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg56644.html > > Which version is correct - with or without _noquota ?
Seems that it's the _noquota variant. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
