On 04/04/2018 02:34 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Replace a WARN_ON with a proper check and message in case something goes
really wrong and resumed balance cannot set up its exclusive status.
The check is a user friendly assertion, I don't expect to ever happen
under normal circumstances.
Also document that the paused balance starts here and owns the exclusive
op status.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index eb78c1d0ce2b..843982a2cbdb 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3982,6 +3982,20 @@ int btrfs_recover_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
struct btrfs_key key;
int ret;
+ /*
+ * This should never happen, as the paused balance state is recovered
+ * during mount without any chance of other exclusive ops to collide.
+ * Let it fail early and do not continue mount.
+ *
+ * Otherwise, this gives the exclusive op status to balance and keeps
+ * in paused state until user intervention (cancel or umount).
+ */
+ if (test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_FS_EXCL_OP, &fs_info->flags)) {
+ btrfs_err(fs_info,
+ "cannot set exclusive op status to resume balance");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
We need the test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_FS_EXCL_OP) only if we confirm that
there is a pending balance. Its better to test and set at the same
place as WARN_ON before.
Thanks, Anand
path = btrfs_alloc_path();
if (!path)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -4018,8 +4032,6 @@ int btrfs_recover_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
btrfs_balance_sys(leaf, item, &disk_bargs);
btrfs_disk_balance_args_to_cpu(&bctl->sys, &disk_bargs);
- WARN_ON(test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_FS_EXCL_OP, &fs_info->flags));
-
mutex_lock(&fs_info->volume_mutex);
mutex_lock(&fs_info->balance_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
