On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:56:00AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index aa91773..ff339b2 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3277,6 +3277,9 @@ again:
}
ret = btrfs_alloc_chunk(trans,
I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in
init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of
init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior
change has occurred here.
do_chunk_alloc() also needed an update since it calls
(2011/07/22 4:48), Mark Fasheh wrote:
I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in
init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of
init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior
change has occurred here.
do_chunk_alloc() also
Hi Tsutomu,
Thanks for the review, it is appreciated!
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:43:52AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
@@ -1037,7 +1037,8 @@ static noinline int find_next_chunk(struct btrfs_root
*root,
struct btrfs_key found_key;
path = btrfs_alloc_path();
-
Excerpts from Mark Fasheh's message of 2011-07-18 17:36:57 -0400:
Hi Tsutomu,
Thanks for the review, it is appreciated!
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:43:52AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
@@ -1037,7 +1037,8 @@ static noinline int find_next_chunk(struct
btrfs_root *root,
struct
I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in
init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of
init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior
change has occurred here.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.com
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c
(2011/07/15 7:15), Mark Fasheh wrote:
I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in
init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of
init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior
change has occurred here.
Signed-off-by: Mark
