| Message ID | 20171012090041.7438-1-anand.jain@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:00:41PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this > area, now its save to remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index 332e00e72b86..0a5251a34d58 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -2015,16 +2015,12 @@ void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > } > > btrfs_close_bdev(srcdev); > - > call_rcu(&srcdev->rcu, free_device); > > /* > - * unless fs_devices is seed fs, num_devices shouldn't go > - * zero > + * If this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices > + * which is true in case of single device seeding fs. Can you please rephrase the first part of the comment? I'm not sure I understand what it's trying to say. > */ > - BUG_ON(!fs_devices->num_devices && !fs_devices->seeding); I think we could still keep the check as an ASSERT. > - > - /* if this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices */ > if (!fs_devices->num_devices) { > struct btrfs_fs_devices *tmp_fs_devices; > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 10/16/2017 10:45 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:00:41PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this >> area, now its save to remove it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++------ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> index 332e00e72b86..0a5251a34d58 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> @@ -2015,16 +2015,12 @@ void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, >> } >> >> btrfs_close_bdev(srcdev); >> - >> call_rcu(&srcdev->rcu, free_device); >> >> /* >> - * unless fs_devices is seed fs, num_devices shouldn't go >> - * zero >> + * If this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices >> + * which is true in case of single device seeding fs. > > Can you please rephrase the first part of the comment? I'm not sure I > understand what it's trying to say. > >> */ >> - BUG_ON(!fs_devices->num_devices && !fs_devices->seeding); > > I think we could still keep the check as an ASSERT. OK. I have fixed these in V2. Thanks, Anand >> - >> - /* if this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices */ >> if (!fs_devices->num_devices) { >> struct btrfs_fs_devices *tmp_fs_devices; >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 332e00e72b86..0a5251a34d58 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -2015,16 +2015,12 @@ void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, } btrfs_close_bdev(srcdev); - call_rcu(&srcdev->rcu, free_device); /* - * unless fs_devices is seed fs, num_devices shouldn't go - * zero + * If this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices + * which is true in case of single device seeding fs. */ - BUG_ON(!fs_devices->num_devices && !fs_devices->seeding); - - /* if this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices */ if (!fs_devices->num_devices) { struct btrfs_fs_devices *tmp_fs_devices;
That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this area, now its save to remove it. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)