Btrfs: fix wrong reservation of csums

We reserve the space for csums only when we write data into a file, in
the other cases, such as tree log, log replay, we don't do reservation,
so we can use the reservation of the transaction handle just for the former.
And for the latter, we should use the tree's own reservation. But the
function - btrfs_csum_file_blocks() didn't differentiate between these
two types of the cases, fix it.

Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c
index ec160202be3e38057c26498558e2f309af7859b7..b7e529d2860f2f42e3a826593359419a4e5f4111 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c
@@ -728,7 +728,6 @@ int btrfs_csum_file_blocks(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
                return -ENOMEM;
 
        sector_sum = sums->sums;
-       trans->adding_csums = 1;
 again:
        next_offset = (u64)-1;
        found_next = 0;
@@ -899,7 +898,6 @@ next_sector:
                goto again;
        }
 out:
-       trans->adding_csums = 0;
        btrfs_free_path(path);
        return ret;
 

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 8cab424c75f86eeef8bd7d3cc163feeabe51ae67..b88381582dabe3d5169d9d0877b08c5fc0d914ec 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -1757,8 +1757,10 @@ static noinline int add_pending_csums(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
        struct btrfs_ordered_sum *sum;
 
        list_for_each_entry(sum, list, list) {
+               trans->adding_csums = 1;
                btrfs_csum_file_blocks(trans,
                       BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info->csum_root, sum);
+               trans->adding_csums = 0;
        }
        return 0;
 }