On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 06:59:04PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:47:57PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > We will crash on BUG_ON(ret == -EEXIST) when we do not resume the existing
> > balance but attempt to start a new one.
> >
> > The steps can be:
> > 1. start balance
> > 2. pause balance
> > 3. start balance
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > index 5cce6aa..3901654 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -3100,7 +3100,12 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl,
> > goto out;
> >
> > if (!(bctl->flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_RESUME)) {
> > - BUG_ON(ret == -EEXIST);
> > + /*
> > + * This can happen when we do not resume the existing balance
> > + * but try to start a new one instead.
> > + */
> > + if (ret == -EEXIST)
> > + goto out;
> > set_balance_control(bctl);
> > } else {
> > BUG_ON(ret != -EEXIST);
>
> OK, it seems balance pause/resume logic got broken by dev-replace code
> (5ac00addc7ac09110995fe967071d191b5981cc1), which went into v3.8-rc1.
> This is most certainly not the right way to fix it, that BUG_ON is there
> for a reason. I'll send a fix in a couple of days.
Okay, right here waiting for test ;)
thanks,
liubo
--
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
