On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Holger Hoffstätte
<holger.hoffstaette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:33:19 +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:59:53 +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>
>>> If an error happens during writeback of log btree extents, make sure the
>>> error is returned to the caller (fsync), so that it takes proper action
>>> (commit current transaction) instead of writing a superblock that points
>>> to log btrees with all or some nodes that weren't durably persisted.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>>> index 6d58d72..c8274d3 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>>> @@ -2599,12 +2599,14 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>> index2 = root_log_ctx.log_transid % 2;
>>> if (atomic_read(&log_root_tree->log_commit[index2])) {
>>> blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>>> - btrfs_wait_marked_extents(log, &log->dirty_log_pages, mark);
>>> + ret = btrfs_wait_marked_extents(log, &log->dirty_log_pages,
>>> + mark);
>>> wait_log_commit(trans, log_root_tree,
>>> root_log_ctx.log_transid);
>>> btrfs_free_logged_extents(log, log_transid);
>>> mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
>>> - ret = root_log_ctx.log_ret;
>>> + if (!ret)
>>> + ret = root_log_ctx.log_ret;
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>> ASSERT(root_log_ctx.log_transid == log_root_tree->log_transid);
>>
>> This first hunk didn't apply to my 3.14.x tree that is 99.999% in sync with
>> btrfs-3.18+, as a line is missing from the context. See:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git/tree/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c?h=for-linus#n2605
>>
>> Any idea where that missing btrfs_free_logged_extents() went?
>
> Found it: it went away with Josef's recent patch on Nov 6:
> "Btrfs: make sure we wait on logged extents when fsycning two subvols"
> (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/40005)
>
> ..which I have applied. boohoo.
>
> That patch also adds another call to btrfs_wait_marked_extents(), which should
> then probably also have its return value handled?
No, it's a different call - btrfs_wait_logged_extents().
>
> thanks,
> Holger
>
> --
> 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
--
Filipe David Manana,
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
--
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
