Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
needed to handle reappearing missing device.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
needed to handle reappearing missing device.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
needed to handle reappearing missing device.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
@@ -742,7 +741,7 @@ static noinline int device_list_add(const char *path,
if (!fs_devices) {
fs_devices = alloc_fs_devices(disk_super->fsid);
if (IS_ERR(fs_devices))
- return PTR_ERR(fs_devices);
+ return
On 10.01.2018 07:16, Anand Jain wrote:
> Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
> better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
> both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
> needed to handle reappearing missing
Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
needed to handle reappearing missing device.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Instead of pointer to btrfs_fs_devices as an arg in device_list_add()
better to get pointer to btrfs_device as return value, then we have
both, pointer to btrfs_device and btrfs_fs_devices. btrfs_device is
needed to handle reappearing missing device.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
