return ret;
}
-static void btrfs_wait_nocow_write(struct btrfs_root *root)
+static void btrfs_wait_for_no_snapshoting_writes(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
s64 writers;
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
atomic_inc(&root->will_be_snapshoted);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
- btrfs_wait_nocow_write(root);
+ btrfs_wait_for_no_snapshoting_writes(root);
ret = btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes(root, 0);
if (ret)
if (ret)
goto fail;
- /*
- * If orphan cleanup did remove any orphans, it means the tree was
- * modified and therefore the commit root is not the same as the
- * current root anymore. This is a problem, because send uses the
- * commit root and therefore can see inode items that don't exist
- * in the current root anymore, and for example make calls to
- * btrfs_iget, which will do tree lookups based on the current root
- * and not on the commit root. Those lookups will fail, returning a
- * -ESTALE error, and making send fail with that error. So make sure
- * a send does not see any orphans we have just removed, and that it
- * will see the same inodes regardless of whether a transaction
- * commit happened before it started (meaning that the commit root
- * will be the same as the current root) or not.
- */
- if (readonly && pending_snapshot->snap->node !=
- pending_snapshot->snap->commit_root) {
- trans = btrfs_join_transaction(pending_snapshot->snap);
- if (IS_ERR(trans) && PTR_ERR(trans) != -ENOENT) {
- ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
- goto fail;
- }
- if (!IS_ERR(trans)) {
- ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans,
- pending_snapshot->snap);
- if (ret)
- goto fail;
- }
- }
-
inode = btrfs_lookup_dentry(dentry->d_parent->d_inode, dentry);
if (IS_ERR(inode)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(inode);
free:
kfree(pending_snapshot);
out:
- atomic_dec(&root->will_be_snapshoted);
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&root->will_be_snapshoted))
+ wake_up_atomic_t(&root->will_be_snapshoted);
return ret;
}
ret = btrfs_start_delalloc_roots(root->fs_info, 0, -1);
if (ret)
return ret;
- ret = btrfs_sync_fs(file->f_dentry->d_sb, 1);
+ ret = btrfs_sync_fs(file_inode(file)->i_sb, 1);
/*
* The transaction thread may want to do more work,
* namely it pokes the cleaner ktread that will start