On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:33:52PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> No functional change, bring the clone of fs_devices and its
> operations closer, so that it indicates its purpose.
>
> Also add a comment to indicate why we clone the fs_devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index b63aae267ebe..0e92969b1adc 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -2276,18 +2276,21 @@ static int btrfs_prepare_sprout(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> if (!fs_devices->seeding)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - seed_devices = alloc_fs_devices(NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(seed_devices))
> - return PTR_ERR(seed_devices);
> -
> + /*
> + * This step ensures the scanned seed device remains scanned,
> + * its not a must for the sprout operation though.
> + */
> old_devices = clone_fs_devices(fs_devices);
> if (IS_ERR(old_devices)) {
> kfree(seed_devices);
seed_devices is uninitialized here.
> return PTR_ERR(old_devices);
> }
> -
> list_add(&old_devices->fs_list, &fs_uuids);
>
> + seed_devices = alloc_fs_devices(NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(seed_devices))
> + return PTR_ERR(seed_devices);
If this fails, is it ok to leave the old_devices in the list? I think it
would be better to do all the allocations first and then do the rest so
the error handling is a bit simpler.
> +
> memcpy(seed_devices, fs_devices, sizeof(*seed_devices));
> seed_devices->opened = 1;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&seed_devices->devices);
> --
> 2.7.0
>
> --
> 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
