Bump. Pretty sure I just ran into this, outside of a testing scenario. See http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/51796 Looks like the patch was never committed. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 Oct 2015 11:25:03 David Sterba wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:14:24PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: >> > + if (unlikely(root->highest_objectid >= BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID)) { >> > + mutex_unlock(&root->objectid_mutex); >> > + ret = -ENOSPC; >> >> ENOSPC ... I don't think it's right as this could be with a normal >> enospc during subvolume creation. The problem is that theh inode number >> space is exhausted, the closest error code I see is EOVERFLOW. As this >> is an ioctl we can afford to define the meaning of this return value as >> such (unlike for eg. creat()/open()). >> >> > + goto free_root_dev; >> > + } >> > + >> > + mutex_unlock(&root->objectid_mutex); >> > + >> > >> > return 0; > > David, Are you suggesting that we return -EOVERFLOW from within > btrfs_init_fs_root() and continue returning -ENOSPC in case of error > (i.e. tree_root->highest_objectid >= BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID) from > open_ctree()? > > If yes, btrfs_init_fs_root() gets invoked from open_ctree() via > btrfs_read_fs_root_no_name() and hence we may end up returning -EOVERFLOW when > servicing the mount() syscall. > > -- > chandan > > -- > 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 -- 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
