Hi Josef,
Would you please move this patch to the first of the patchset?
It's making bisect quite hard, as it will always stop at this patch,
hard to check if it's a regression or existing bug.
Thanks,
Qu
At 03/26/2016 01:25 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
These were hidden behind enospc_debug, which isn't helpful as they indicate
actual bugs, unlike the rest of the enospc_debug stuff which is really debug
information. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 14 ++++++++------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 157a0b6..90ac821 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -9633,13 +9633,15 @@ int btrfs_free_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
space_info = list_entry(info->space_info.next,
struct btrfs_space_info,
list);
- if (btrfs_test_opt(info->tree_root, ENOSPC_DEBUG)) {
- if (WARN_ON(space_info->bytes_pinned > 0 ||
+
+ /*
+ * Do not hide this behind enospc_debug, this is actually
+ * important and indicates a real bug if this happens.
+ */
+ if (WARN_ON(space_info->bytes_pinned > 0 ||
space_info->bytes_reserved > 0 ||
- space_info->bytes_may_use > 0)) {
- dump_space_info(space_info, 0, 0);
- }
- }
+ space_info->bytes_may_use > 0))
+ dump_space_info(space_info, 0, 0);
list_del(&space_info->list);
for (i = 0; i < BTRFS_NR_RAID_TYPES; i++) {
struct kobject *kobj;
--
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
