On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 08:44:51AM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote: > On 06/20/2014 08:29 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 01:25:34PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 04:17:25PM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>>> We don't pay attention to the return value, we should probably abort the >>>>>> transaction if there is a problem. >>>>> >>>>> Abort or log an error and continue? I ask because technically we could >>>>> continue with the subvolume drop but obviously qgroup state will need to be >>>>> fixed via a future rescan. I guess the question is which is more 'friendly' >>>>> to the user. >>>> >>>> I'd be ok with log an error and tell the user to rescan. Thanks, >>> >>> I agree. >> >> Great, I went ahead and did that. Below is patch #2 with all review comments >> implemented. >> > > Looks good, you can add > > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx> > > However I'd like to see an xfstest or two for this case so we're sure to be > testing everything properly. Once we have that we can merge it. Thanks, Adding a test is no problem - I can just import a little script I have to make a shared tree. FYI though - btrfsck will still report some inconsistency until we fix the last bit of accounting problems so I guess it won't really 'pass' at first. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- 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
