On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:29:23AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > There is no reason for this sort of jackassery. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 3 +-- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > index 18f7e71..ea8d522 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > @@ -1942,6 +1942,5 @@ int btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root) > * If we encounter a transaction abort during snapshot cleaning, we > * don't want to crash here > */ > - BUG_ON(ret < 0 && ret != -EAGAIN && ret != -EROFS); > - return 1; > + return (ret < 0) ? 0 : 1; The reason was to let known harmless error codes pass and catch the unexpected ones, but the whitelist was incomplete and I guess you've seen something like ENOMEM or EIO. As the cleaning process is restartable I'm ok with removing the bugon. Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> -- 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
