On 12/12/2013 01:28 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:25:34AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
@@ -5527,15 +5734,16 @@ again:
}
btrfs_release_path(&path);
while(1) {
- ret = run_next_block(root, bits, bits_nr, &last, &pending,
- &seen, &reada, &nodes, &extent_cache,
- &chunk_cache, &dev_cache,
+ ret = run_next_block(trans, root, bits, bits_nr, &last,
+ &pending, &seen, &reada, &nodes,
+ &extent_cache, &chunk_cache, &dev_cache,
&block_group_cache, &dev_extent_cache);
if (ret != 0)
break;
}
- ret = check_extent_refs(trans, root, &extent_cache);
+ if (ret >= 0)
+ ret = check_extent_refs(trans, root, &extent_cache);
if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans, root);
if (ret)
This hunk conflicts with Gui Hecheng's patch
"Btrfs-progs: fix btrfsck improper prompt on dropping snapshots"
I applied the change where necessary, but haven't reviewed if this does
not break the semantics. You may want to take a look.
As long as it passes make test it should be fine, I'll double check just
in case. Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
