On 05/02/2016 11:26 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:02:08AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
@@ -569,11 +569,9 @@ static int btrfs_dev_replace_finishing(struct
btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
ASSERT(list_empty(&src_device->resized_list));
tgt_device->commit_total_bytes = src_device->commit_total_bytes;
tgt_device->commit_bytes_used = src_device->bytes_used;
- if (fs_info->sb->s_bdev &&
- (fs_info->sb->s_bdev == src_device->bdev))
- fs_info->sb->s_bdev = tgt_device->bdev;
What's the base of this patch?
It was on master. But now the V3 which is based on your for-next.
The above code is not in my for-next so
I could be missing some important bits.
Yes. That was added by this patch.
[PATCH] btrfs: s_bdev is not null after missing replace
While here can also integrate this.
[PATCH 1/1] btrfs: fix lock dep warning move scratch super outside of
chunk_mutex
------
git status
On branch for-next
Your branch is ahead of 'origin/for-next' by 3 commits.
(use "git push" to publish your local commits)
nothing to commit, working directory clean
git log --oneline | head -n 3
ac3fd7a65d23 btrfs: cleanup assigning next active device with a check
0fbd788ec3d9 btrfs: s_bdev is not null after missing replace
8362f084ffd6 btrfs: fix lock dep warning move scratch super outside of
chunk_mutex
-----
I have run xfstests on for-next I don't see any unusual failures.
Thanks,
Anand
- if (fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev == src_device->bdev)
- fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev = tgt_device->bdev;
+
+ btrfs_assign_next_active_device(fs_info, src_device, tgt_device);
+
list_add(&tgt_device->dev_alloc_list, &fs_info->fs_devices->alloc_list);
fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices++;
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 5f70c1235466..0bb15da2da40 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -1742,10 +1742,49 @@ out:
return ret;
}
+struct btrfs_device *btrfs_find_next_active_device(struct btrfs_fs_devices
*fs_devs,
+ struct btrfs_device *device)
+{
+ struct btrfs_device *next_device;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(next_device, &fs_devs->devices, dev_list) {
+ if (next_device != device &&
+ !next_device->missing && next_device->bdev)
+ return next_device;
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Helper function to check if the given device is part of
+ * s_bdev / latest_bdev and replace it with the provided or
+ * the next active device, in the context where this function
+ * called, there should be always be another device which is
+ * active.
+ */
+void btrfs_assign_next_active_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ struct btrfs_device *device, struct btrfs_device *this_dev)
+{
+ struct btrfs_device *next_device;
+
+ if (this_dev)
+ next_device = this_dev;
+ else
+ next_device = btrfs_find_next_active_device(fs_info->fs_devices,
+ device);
+ BUG_ON(!next_device); /* Logic error */
Please make it an ASSERT.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
