On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:07:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:13:42PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > In raid56 senario, after trying parity recovery, we didn't set
> > mirror_num for btrfs_bio with failed mirror_num, hence
> > end_bio_extent_readpage() will report a random mirror_num in dmesg
> > log.
> >
> > Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > index 73d56ee..be64e4a 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -6197,6 +6197,7 @@ int btrfs_map_bio(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct bio *bio,
> > } else {
> > ret = raid56_parity_recover(fs_info, bio, bbio,
> > map_length, mirror_num, 1);
> > + btrfs_io_bio(bio)->mirror_num = mirror_num;
>
> Should the mirror be set inside raid56_parity_recover? There's another
> caller, scrub_submit_raid56_bio_wait, that does not update the
> bio->mirror_num. I am not sure if this is the same case though.
>
scrub_submit_raid56_bio_wait doesn't need to, but yes, we could set the
mirror inside raid56_parity_recover iff @generic_io is 1.
Thanks,
-liubo
> > }
> >
> > btrfs_bio_counter_dec(fs_info);
--
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
