The u64 is an overkill here, we could not possibly create that many
blockgroups in one transaction.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/transaction.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 11b7d613140b..d59a65852447 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ int btrfs_check_space_for_delayed_refs(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv;
u64 num_heads = trans->transaction->delayed_refs.num_heads_ready;
u64 csum_bytes = trans->transaction->delayed_refs.pending_csums;
- u64 num_dirty_bgs = trans->transaction->num_dirty_bgs;
+ unsigned int num_dirty_bgs = trans->transaction->num_dirty_bgs;
u64 num_bytes, num_dirty_bgs_bytes;
int ret = 0;
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
index edf53112a6f2..1805fd101767 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ struct btrfs_transaction {
struct list_head dirty_bgs;
struct list_head io_bgs;
struct list_head dropped_roots;
- u64 num_dirty_bgs;
+ unsigned int num_dirty_bgs;
/*
* we need to make sure block group deletion doesn't race with
--
2.14.3
--
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
