(2011/07/15 7:15), Mark Fasheh wrote:
> I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in
> init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of
> init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior
> change has occurred here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 530a2fc..90d956c 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -1037,7 +1037,8 @@ static noinline int find_next_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root,
> struct btrfs_key found_key;
>
> path = btrfs_alloc_path();
> - BUG_ON(!path);
> + if (!path)
> + return -ENOMEM;
If find_next_chunk() returns -ENOMEM, space_info->full becomes 1 by following code.
3205 static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
3206 struct btrfs_root *extent_root, u64 alloc_bytes,
3207 u64 flags, int force)
3208 {
...
3277 ret = btrfs_alloc_chunk(trans, extent_root, flags);
3278 spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
3279 if (ret)
3280 space_info->full = 1;
3281 else
3282 ret = 1;
Is it OK?
Thanks,
Tsutomu
>
> key.objectid = objectid;
> key.offset = (u64)-1;
> @@ -2663,7 +2664,8 @@ static noinline int init_first_rw_device(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>
> ret = find_next_chunk(fs_info->chunk_root,
> BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID, &chunk_offset);
> - BUG_ON(ret);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> alloc_profile = BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA |
> (fs_info->metadata_alloc_profile &
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
