| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This could've been quite bad (to return success but not update the new
root to point at the old) but in practice the only known consumer of the
dm array code is the DM cache target. And the DM cache target passes in
the same old root to array_resize() anyway.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
|
|
An old array block could have its reference count decremented below
zero when it is being replaced in the btree by a new array block.
The fix is to increment the old ablock's reference count just before
inserting a new ablock into the btree.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.9+
|
|
Entries would be lost if the old tail block was partially filled.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.9+
|
|
Add a transactional array.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
|
