Commit 17dc59ba authored by Jan Kara's avatar Jan Kara

udf: Do not decrement i_blocks when freeing indirect extent block

Indirect extent block is not accounted in i_blocks during allocation
thus we should not decrement i_blocks when we are freeing such block
during truncation.
Reported-by: default avatarSteve Nickel <snickel58@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
parent bff943af
......@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ void udf_truncate_extents(struct inode *inode)
/* We managed to free all extents in the
* indirect extent - free it too */
BUG_ON(!epos.bh);
udf_free_blocks(sb, inode, &epos.block,
udf_free_blocks(sb, NULL, &epos.block,
0, indirect_ext_len);
} else if (!epos.bh) {
iinfo->i_lenAlloc = lenalloc;
......@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void udf_truncate_extents(struct inode *inode)
if (indirect_ext_len) {
BUG_ON(!epos.bh);
udf_free_blocks(sb, inode, &epos.block, 0, indirect_ext_len);
udf_free_blocks(sb, NULL, &epos.block, 0, indirect_ext_len);
} else if (!epos.bh) {
iinfo->i_lenAlloc = lenalloc;
mark_inode_dirty(inode);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment