On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:53PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> I'm not sure why we weren't aborting here in the first place, it is obviously a
> bad time from the fact that we print the leaf and yell loudly about it. Fix
> this up, otherwise we panic because our path could be pointing into oblivion.
> Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 696f0b6..0015b02 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -5744,6 +5744,8 @@ static int __btrfs_free_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
Adding context:
5748 } else if (WARN_ON(ret == -ENOENT)) {
5749 btrfs_print_leaf(extent_root, path->nodes[0]);
5750 btrfs_err(info,
> "unable to find ref byte nr %llu parent %llu root %llu owner %llu offset %llu",
> bytenr, parent, root_objectid, owner_objectid,
> owner_offset);
> + btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, extent_root, ret);
Abort prints stacktrace on it's own and with the WARN_ON above it would
be noisy and without any extra benefit, so I suggest to remove it.
> + goto out;
> } else {
--
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
