On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:25:28PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 05:24:43PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > @@ -3972,6 +3972,7 @@ static ssize_t fill_read_buf(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len)
> > pgoff_t last_index;
> > unsigned pg_offset = offset & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
> > ssize_t ret = 0;
> > + struct file_ra_state *ra = NULL;
> >
> > key.objectid = sctx->cur_ino;
> > key.type = BTRFS_INODE_ITEM_KEY;
> > @@ -3991,6 +3992,17 @@ static ssize_t fill_read_buf(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len)
> > goto out;
> >
> > last_index = (offset + len - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > + /* initial readahead */
> > + ra = kzalloc(sizeof(*ra), GFP_NOFS);
> > + if (!ra) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
>
> This should not be a hard failure, it can continue without RA for this
> buffer. Besides, the RA buffer can be allocated at the beginning of send
> operation and pointer stored in the send context.
Good point, I think we can fold this into 'struct send_ctx', do you agree?
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
