forked from ~ljy/RK356X_SDK_RELEASE

blame | history | patch | commit | commitdiff
hc
2024-05-14 bedbef8ad3e75a304af6361af235302bcc61d06b 
 kernel/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
....@@ -984,36 +984,28 @@
984984 	 * ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
985985 	 * the buffer dirtied, ugh.)  */
986986 
987
-	if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
987
+	if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
988
+		warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
988989 		/*
989
-		 * First question: is this buffer already part of the current
990
-		 * transaction or the existing committing transaction?
991
-		 */
992
-		if (jh->b_transaction) {
993
-			J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
994
-				jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
995
-				jh->b_transaction ==
996
-					journal->j_committing_transaction);
997
-			if (jh->b_next_transaction)
998
-				J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
999
-							transaction);
1000
-			warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
1001
-		}
1002
-		/*
1003
-		 * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
1004
-		 * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
1005
-		 * with running write-out.
990
+		 * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
991
+		 * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
1006992 		 */
1007993 		JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
1008994 		clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
995
+		/*
996
+		 * The buffer is going to be added to BJ_Reserved list now and
997
+		 * nothing guarantees jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata() will be
998
+		 * ever called for it. So we need to set jbddirty bit here to
999
+		 * make sure the buffer is dirtied and written out when the
1000
+		 * journaling machinery is done with it.
1001
+		 */
10091002 		set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
10101003 	}
1011
-
1012
-	unlock_buffer(bh);
10131004 
10141005 	error = -EROFS;
10151006 	if (is_handle_aborted(handle)) {
10161007 		spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock);
1008
+		unlock_buffer(bh);
10171009 		goto out;
10181010 	}
10191011 	error = 0;
....@@ -1023,8 +1015,10 @@
10231015 	 * b_next_transaction points to it
10241016 	 */
10251017 	if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
1026
-	    jh->b_next_transaction == transaction)
1018
+	    jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
1019
+		unlock_buffer(bh);
10271020 		goto done;
1021
+	}
10281022 
10291023 	/*
10301024 	 * this is the first time this transaction is touching this buffer,
....@@ -1048,10 +1042,24 @@
10481042 		 */
10491043 		smp_wmb();
10501044 		spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
1045
+		if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
1046
+			/*
1047
+			 * Execute buffer dirty clearing and jh->b_transaction
1048
+			 * assignment under journal->j_list_lock locked to
1049
+			 * prevent bh being removed from checkpoint list if
1050
+			 * the buffer is in an intermediate state (not dirty
1051
+			 * and jh->b_transaction is NULL).
1052
+			 */
1053
+			JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
1054
+			set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
1055
+		}
10511056 		__jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved);
10521057 		spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
1058
+		unlock_buffer(bh);
10531059 		goto done;
10541060 	}
1061
+	unlock_buffer(bh);
1062
+
10551063 	/*
10561064 	 * If there is already a copy-out version of this buffer, then we don't
10571065 	 * need to make another one
....@@ -2370,6 +2378,9 @@
23702378 			spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock);
23712379 			write_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
23722380 			jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(jh);
2381
+			/* Already zapped buffer? Nothing to do... */
2382
+			if (!bh->b_bdev)
2383
+				return 0;
23732384 			return -EBUSY;
23742385 		}
23752386 		/*