On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:44:07PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:42:26AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> > @@ -390,8 +390,7 @@ static int btree_read_extent_buffer_pages(struct btrfs_root *root,
> >
> > if (!failed_mirror) {
> > failed = 1;
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "failed mirror was %d\n", eb->failed_mirror);
> > - failed_mirror = eb->failed_mirror;
> > + failed_mirror = eb->read_mirror;
> > }
> >
> > mirror_num++;
>
> this hunk does not apply for me (on top of master or for-linus), there's
> a different context. In your version the
>
> if (!failed_mirror)
>
> check is moved after
>
> 392 num_copies = btrfs_num_copies(&root->fs_info->mapping_tree,
> 393 eb->start, eb->len);
> 394 if (num_copies == 1)
> 395 break;
> 396
>
> which was one of the incremental patches sent for testing, but it's
> needed.
>
>
Oh duh sorry I saved that patch as a commit in my tree but didn't actually send
it to the list, I will do that. Thanks,
Josef
--
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
