Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: warn for num_devices below 0

2018-07-13 Thread Anand Jain




On 07/12/2018 03:13 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:



On 10.07.2018 21:22, Anand Jain wrote:

In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the
num_devices, use warn instead of bug.

Signed-off-by: Anand Jain 
---
  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index eb78bb8d1108..ce6faeb8bcf8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3813,7 +3813,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) {
-   BUG_ON(num_devices < 1);
+   WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);




Isn't dev_replace_is_ongoing && num_devices < 1 indeed a logical bug
situation? Under what condition can it happen that you deem "non
critical" ?


 In all conditions needs least one device for the FS to be mounted.
 In fact we can just remove it.

Thanks, Anand


num_devices--;
}
btrfs_dev_replace_read_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace);


--
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


Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: warn for num_devices below 0

2018-07-12 Thread Nikolay Borisov



On 10.07.2018 21:22, Anand Jain wrote:
> In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the
> num_devices, use warn instead of bug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain 
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index eb78bb8d1108..ce6faeb8bcf8 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -3813,7 +3813,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>   num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
>   btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
>   if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) {
> - BUG_ON(num_devices < 1);
> + WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);

Isn't dev_replace_is_ongoing && num_devices < 1 indeed a logical bug
situation? Under what condition can it happen that you deem "non
critical" ?

>   num_devices--;
>   }
>   btrfs_dev_replace_read_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
> 
--
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