btrfs: remove racy and unnecessary inode transaction update when using no-holes
When using the NO_HOLES feature and expanding the size of an inode, we update the inode's last_trans, last_sub_trans and last_log_commit fields at maybe_insert_hole() so that a fsync does know that the inode needs to be logged (by making sure that btrfs_inode_in_log() returns false). This happens for expanding truncate operations, buffered writes, direct IO writes and when cloning extents to an offset greater than the inode's i_size. However the way we do it is racy, because in between setting the inode's last_sub_trans and last_log_commit fields, the log transaction ID that was assigned to last_sub_trans might be committed before we read the root's last_log_commit and assign that value to last_log_commit. If that happens it would make a future call to btrfs_inode_in_log() return true. This is a race that should be extremely unlikely to be hit in practice, and it is the same that was described by commit bc0939fc ("btrfs: fix race between marking inode needs to be logged and log syncing"). The fix would simply be to set last_log_commit to the value we assigned to last_sub_trans minus 1, like it was done in that commit. However updating these two fields plus the last_trans field is pointless here because all the callers of btrfs_cont_expand() (which is the only caller of maybe_insert_hole()) always call btrfs_set_inode_last_trans() or btrfs_update_inode() after calling btrfs_cont_expand(). Calling either btrfs_set_inode_last_trans() or btrfs_update_inode() guarantees that the next fsync will log the inode, as it makes btrfs_inode_in_log() return false. So just remove the code that explicitly sets the inode's last_trans, last_sub_trans and last_log_commit fields. Reviewed-by:Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Signed-off-by: