On 7/8/16 7:19 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > 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...? Hi Holger - This is the for-next branch. It's not in any mainline branch yet. >> 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? A different fix went into for-next. That's where the conflict is. The merged version of my root->fs_info patch reverts it. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
