Hi Tsutomu,
Thanks for the review, it is appreciated!
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:43:52AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> > @@ -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?
I don't think so actually. It looks like in this case we might want to
bubble the error back up past do_chunk_alloc and leave space_info untouched.
Chris, does that seem reasonable?
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
--
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
