On 07/12/2018 03:13 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 10.07.2018 21:22, Anand Jain wrote:
In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the
num_devices, use warn instead of bug.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index eb78bb8d1108..ce6faeb8bcf8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3813,7 +3813,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) {
- BUG_ON(num_devices < 1);
+ WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);
Isn't dev_replace_is_ongoing && num_devices < 1 indeed a logical bug
situation? Under what condition can it happen that you deem "non
critical" ?
In all conditions needs least one device for the FS to be mounted.
In fact we can just remove it.
Thanks, Anand
num_devices--;
}
btrfs_dev_replace_read_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
--
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
