Re: kdave/for-next commit 26112f7f472

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/08/16 06:24, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Hi Dave -
> 
> This commit introduces a bug.  I ran across it when running xfstests
> against my own integrated branch.

I can't find that commit id anywhere...?

> The problem is that btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size didn't used to be
> called from recovery, so it was safe to use fs_info->fs_root.  With
> commit 7c83c6a09 (Btrfs: don't bother kicking async if there's nothing
> to reclaim) we do call it from recovery context and fs_info->fs_root is
> NULL.
> 
> The fix is to just not switch btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size to take
> an fs_info.  All the other call sites were using fs_info->fs_root
> anyway, so it's not like we're pinning a root somewhere just for this call.

I've had this patch from last October in my 4.4.x tree forever:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg48457.html

Apparently it fell off the table. Shouldn't that fix it?

-h


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux