On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 04:52:21PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> (2012/07/26 15:57), Miao Xie wrote:
> > btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, root, ret);
> > goto fail;
> > }
> > @@ -1386,13 +1408,13 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> > */
> > mutex_lock(&root->fs_info->reloc_mutex);
> >
> > - ret = btrfs_run_delayed_items(trans, root);
> > + ret = create_pending_snapshots(trans, root->fs_info);
> > if (ret) {
> > mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->reloc_mutex);
> > goto cleanup_transaction;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = create_pending_snapshots(trans, root->fs_info);
> > + ret = btrfs_run_delayed_items(trans, root);
> > if (ret) {
> > mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->reloc_mutex);
> > goto cleanup_transaction;
>
> It would be nice to have a patch description to tell why you
> have to change the order here.
Not only nice but necessary, as this order will cause corruption under
certain conditions. I'd like to hear the reason behind.
david
--
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
