On 25/2/20 10:05 PM, David Sterba wrote:
Deleting a subvolume on a full filesystem leads to ENOSPC followed by a
forced read-only. This is not a transaction abort and the filesystem is
otherwise ok, so the error should be just propagated.
yep.
This is caused by unnecessary call to btrfs_handle_fs_error for almost
all errors, except EAGAIN. This does not make sense as the standard
transaction abort mechanism is in btrfs_drop_snapshot so all relevant
failures are handled.
Originally in commit cb1b69f4508a ("Btrfs: forced readonly when
btrfs_drop_snapshot() fails") there was no return value at all, so the
btrfs_std_error made some sense but once the error handling and
propagation has been we don't need it.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
---
The use of btrfs_handle_fs_error in other places looks fishy, it makes
sense only in case there's a real error and transaction abort is not
possible, ~40 calls sound too much.
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 161274118853..b18db1b3a412 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -5426,8 +5426,6 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
*/
if (!for_reloc && !root_dropped)
btrfs_add_dead_root(root);
- if (err && err != -EAGAIN)
- btrfs_handle_fs_error(fs_info, err, NULL);
return err;
}
However can we confirm that the error returned here are logged by its
parents (relocation thread and the cleaner thread) ?
Thanks, Anand
