On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:11:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > There is no reason we can't just set the path to blocking and then do normal
> > GFP_NOFS allocations for these extent buffers. Thanks,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> You've forgotten at least one place.
>
> static inline struct extent_buffer *
> get_old_root(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 time_seq)
> {
> ...
> eb_root = btrfs_read_lock_root_node(root);
> ...
> } else {
> eb = btrfs_clone_extent_buffer(eb_root);
> btrfs_tree_read_unlock(eb_root);
>
>
> The xfstest btrfs/004 (backref testing) discovered this issue in the
> context of ioctl(BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO).
>
Ah excellent, thanks. I will fix this up right now.
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
