@@ -2969,6 +2969,7 @@ int btrfs_orphan_add(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct inode *inode)
if (insert >= 1) {
ret = btrfs_insert_orphan_item(trans, root, btrfs_ino(inode));
if (ret) {
+ atomic_dec(&root->orphan_inodes);
if (reserve) {
clear_bit(BTRFS_INODE_ORPHAN_META_RESERVED,
&BTRFS_I(inode)->runtime_flags);
@@ -3018,14 +3019,16 @@ static int btrfs_orphan_del(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
release_rsv = 1;
spin_unlock(&root->orphan_lock);
- if (trans && delete_item)
- ret = btrfs_del_orphan_item(trans, root, btrfs_ino(inode));
-
- if (release_rsv) {
- btrfs_orphan_release_metadata(inode);
+ if (delete_item) {
atomic_dec(&root->orphan_inodes);
+ if (trans)
+ ret = btrfs_del_orphan_item(trans, root,
+ btrfs_ino(inode));
}
+ if (release_rsv)
+ btrfs_orphan_release_metadata(inode);
+
return ret;
}
In inode.c:btrfs_orphan_add() if we failed to insert the orphan item, we would return without decrementing the orphan count that we just incremented before attempting the insertion, leaving the orphan inode count wrong. In inode.c:btrfs_orphan_del(), we were decrementing the inode orphan count if the bit BTRFS_INODE_ORPHAN_META_RESERVED was set, which is logically wrong because it should be decremented if the bit BTRFS_INODE_HAS_ORPHAN_ITEM was set - after all we increment the count when we set the bit BTRFS_INODE_HAS_ORPHAN_ITEM elsewhere. Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)