On 28.05.2018 19:12, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 03:26:58PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>>>>> dmesg looks like: >>>>>> [ 6.649213] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2838 at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:303 record_root_in_trans+0x38/0xd0 > > Found in the logs. I reported it to the patch that added the assertion > but I did not suspect your patches. > >>>>>> [ 6.662909] create_pending_snapshot+0x1ab/0xd00 > >> So the answer to your question is "yes", in which case indeed this patch >> will have to be reverted. > > Both patches removed from misc-next. I think 1/2 is actually safe, it's removing something from the transaction path without affecting the overall logic which should be a small win. > -- > 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 > -- 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
