Reviewing as requested! It certainly looks reasonable, but I don't have
enough history with the code to really say much more than that.
Some questions:
> @@ -8423,6 +8432,10 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> sizeof(item));
> if (ret)
> btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, extent_root, ret);
> + ret = btrfs_finish_chunk_alloc(trans, extent_root,
> + key.objectid, key.offset);
Would this moved call site need to worry about the chunk mutex at all?
> + if (ret)
> + btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, root, ret);
Did you mean to abort the root here, not the extent_root like the one
above?
> +static int contains_pending_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> + struct btrfs_device *device,
> + u64 *start, u64 len)
> +{
> + struct extent_map *em;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(em, &trans->transaction->pending_chunks, list) {
> + struct map_lookup *map;
> + int i;
> +
> + map = (struct map_lookup *)em->bdev;
> + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++) {
> + if (map->stripes[i].dev != device)
> + continue;
> + if (map->stripes[i].physical >= *start + len ||
> + map->stripes[i].physical + em->orig_block_len <=
> + *start)
> + continue;
> + *start = map->stripes[i].physical +
> + em->orig_block_len;
> + ret = 1;
> + }
> + }
Did you want a 'break;' there? Is it trying to set *start to the last
match rather than returning the first?
> + ret = btrfs_alloc_dev_extent(trans, device,
> + chunk_root->root_key.objectid,
> + BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID,
> + chunk_offset, dev_offset,
> + stripe_size);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
The old code tried to free up previous allocations when one failed, but
it looks like this deferred alloc doesn't. Do we care?
> - index = 0;
> - while (index < map->num_stripes) {
> - index++;
> + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++) {
*hugs*
- z
--
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
