On 18.01.2018 04:32, Anand Jain wrote:
> By maintaining the device order consistency it makes reproducing
> the problem more consistent. So fix this by having the devices
Which problem is that ?
> sorted by some order within the kernel, lets say by devid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index d393808071d5..68be58a5b03f 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/raid/pq.h>
> #include <linux/semaphore.h>
> #include <linux/uuid.h>
> +#include <linux/list_sort.h>
> #include <asm/div64.h>
> #include "ctree.h"
> #include "extent_map.h"
> @@ -1108,6 +1109,20 @@ static int __btrfs_open_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int device_sort(void *priv, struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_device *dev1, *dev2;
> +
> + dev1 = list_entry(a, struct btrfs_device, dev_list);
> + dev2 = list_entry(b, struct btrfs_device, dev_list);
> +
> + if (dev1->devid < dev2->devid)
> + return -1;
> + else if (dev1->devid > dev2->devid)
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> int btrfs_open_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
> fmode_t flags, void *holder)
> {
> @@ -1118,6 +1133,7 @@ int btrfs_open_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
> fs_devices->opened++;
> ret = 0;
> } else {
> + list_sort(NULL, &fs_devices->devices, device_sort);
> ret = __btrfs_open_devices(fs_devices, flags, holder);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
>
--
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
