On 2019/11/12 下午8:24, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Now that the preparation work is done, remove the temporary BUG_ON() in
> close_fs_devices() and return an error instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index be1fd935edf7..844333b96075 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -1128,7 +1128,12 @@ static int close_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
> mutex_lock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(device, tmp, &fs_devices->devices, dev_list) {
> ret = btrfs_close_one_device(device);
> - BUG_ON(ret); /* -ENOMEM */
> + if (ret) {
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + fs_devices->opened--;
> + fs_devices->seeding--;
This seeding-- doesn't look safe to me.
>From what I see, fs_devices->seeding seems to be bool value (0 or 1).
Wouldn't this seeding-- underflow?
Thanks,
Qu
> }
> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>
>
