3.6.11.9-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Josef Bacik <jba...@fusionio.com>
[ Upstream commit fec386ac1428f9c0e672df952cbca5cebd4e4e2f ]
We aren't setting path->locks[level] when we resume a snapshot deletion which
means we won't unlock the buffer when we free the path. This causes deadlocks
if we happen to re-allocate the block before we've evicted the extent buffer
from cache. Thanks,
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Alex Lyakas <alex.bt...@zadarastorage.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jba...@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 6d7b589..dcfce2a 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -7007,6 +7007,7 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
while (1) {
btrfs_tree_lock(path->nodes[level]);
btrfs_set_lock_blocking(path->nodes[level]);
+ path->locks[level] = BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK_BLOCKING;
ret = btrfs_lookup_extent_info(trans, root,
path->nodes[level]->start,
@@ -7023,6 +7024,7 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
break;
btrfs_tree_unlock(path->nodes[level]);
+ path->locks[level] = 0;
WARN_ON(wc->refs[level] != 1);
level--;
}
--
1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
