On 2018/02/16 4:05, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxx>
> +static struct subvol_list *btrfs_list_deleted_subvols(int fd,
> + struct btrfs_list_filter_set *filter_set)
> +{
> + struct subvol_list *subvols = NULL;
> + uint64_t *ids = NULL;
> + size_t i, n;
> + enum btrfs_util_error err;
> + int ret = -1;
> +
> + err = btrfs_util_deleted_subvolumes_fd(fd, &ids, &n);
> + if (err) {
> + error_btrfs_util(err);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + subvols = malloc(sizeof(*subvols) + n * sizeof(subvols->subvols[0]));
> + if (!subvols) {
> + error("out of memory");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + subvols->num = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> + struct listed_subvol *subvol = &subvols->subvols[subvols->num];
> +
> + err = btrfs_util_subvolume_info_fd(fd, ids[i], &subvol->info);
> + if (err) {
I think there is a small chance that subvolume would be removed from tree between
btrfs_util_deleted_subvolumes_fd() and btrfs_util_subvolume_info_fd().
So, error of BTRFS_UTIL_ERROR_SUBVOLUME_NOT_FOUND should be ignored.
> + error_btrfs_util(err);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + subvol->path = strdup("DELETED");
> + if (!subvol->path)
> + goto out;
> +
> + if (!filters_match(subvol, filter_set)) {
> + free(subvol->path);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + subvols->num++;
> + }
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +out:
> + if (ret) {
> + free_subvol_list(subvols);
> + subvols = NULL;
> + free(ids);
> + }
> + return subvols;
> +}
--
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
