01:25, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Not being able to delete an orphan item isn't a horrible thing. The worst
> that
> happens is the next time around we try and do the orphan cleanup and we can't
> find the referenced object and just delete the item and move on. Thanks,
>
Would be better to add code comment? Otherwise later people may wonder why
the return value is not checked and see it as a bug.
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jo...@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 1 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 8aed05e..8c26441 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -6354,7 +6354,6 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
> if (ret > 0) {
> ret = btrfs_del_orphan_item(trans, tree_root,
> root->root_key.objectid);
> - BUG_ON(ret);
> }
> }
>
--
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
