On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:25:34AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> @@ -5527,15 +5734,16 @@ again:
> }
> btrfs_release_path(&path);
> while(1) {
> - ret = run_next_block(root, bits, bits_nr, &last, &pending,
> - &seen, &reada, &nodes, &extent_cache,
> - &chunk_cache, &dev_cache,
> + ret = run_next_block(trans, root, bits, bits_nr, &last,
> + &pending, &seen, &reada, &nodes,
> + &extent_cache, &chunk_cache, &dev_cache,
> &block_group_cache, &dev_extent_cache);
> if (ret != 0)
> break;
> }
>
> - ret = check_extent_refs(trans, root, &extent_cache);
> + if (ret >= 0)
> + ret = check_extent_refs(trans, root, &extent_cache);
> if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans, root);
> if (ret)
This hunk conflicts with Gui Hecheng's patch
"Btrfs-progs: fix btrfsck improper prompt on dropping snapshots"
I applied the change where necessary, but haven't reviewed if this does
not break the semantics. You may want to take a look.
thanks,
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
