On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 06:32:43PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 09:36:54PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > index 828aa34..fb11550 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -117,6 +117,52 @@ static void requeue_list(struct btrfs_pending_bios
> > *pending_bios,
> > pending_bios->tail = tail;
> > }
> >
> > +void btrfs_get_replication_info(struct btrfs_replication_info *info,
> > + u64 type)
> > +{
> > + info->sub_stripes = 1;
> > + info->dev_stripes = 1;
> > + info->devs_increment = 1;
> > + info->num_copies = 1;
> > + info->devs_max = 0; /* 0 == as many as possible */
> > + info->devs_min = 1;
> > +
> > + if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP) {
> > + info->dev_stripes = 2;
> > + info->num_copies = 2;
> > + info->devs_max = 1;
> > + } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID0) {
> > + info->devs_min = 2;
> > + } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1) {
> > + info->devs_increment = 2;
> > + info->num_copies = 2;
> > + info->devs_max = 2;
> > + info->devs_min = 2;
> > + } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10) {
> > + info->sub_stripes = 2;
> > + info->devs_increment = 2;
> > + info->num_copies = 2;
> > + info->devs_min = 4;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
> > + info->max_stripe_size = 1024 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->min_stripe_size = 64 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->max_chunk_size = 10 * info->max_stripe_size;
> > + } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA) {
> > + info->max_stripe_size = 256 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->min_stripe_size = 32 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->max_chunk_size = info->max_stripe_size;
> > + } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_SYSTEM) {
> > + info->max_stripe_size = 8 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->min_stripe_size = 1 * 1024 * 1024;
> > + info->max_chunk_size = 2 * info->max_stripe_size;
> > + } else {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "Block group is of an unknown usage type: not
> > data, metadata or system.\n");
> > + BUG_ON(1);From inspection, this looks like it's a viable solution: + info->max_stripe_size = 0; + info->min_stripe_size = -1ULL; + info->max_chunk_size = 0; We only run into problems if a user of this function passes a RAID-only block group type and then tries to use the size parameters from it. There's only three users of the function currently, and this case is the only one that doesn't pass a "real" block group type flag. I'll run a quick test of dev rm and see what happens... > I'm hitting this BUG_ON with 'btrfs device delete', type = 24 which is > BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID0 + BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 . > > in btrfs_rm_device: > > 1277 all_avail = root->fs_info->avail_data_alloc_bits | > 1278 root->fs_info->avail_system_alloc_bits | > 1279 root->fs_info->avail_metadata_alloc_bits; > > the values before the call are: > > [ 105.107074] D: all_avail 24 > [ 105.111844] D: root->fs_info->avail_data_alloc_bits 8 > [ 105.118858] D: root->fs_info->avail_system_alloc_bits 16 > [ 105.126110] D: root->fs_info->avail_metadata_alloc_bits 16 > > > there are 5 devices, sdb5 - sdb9, i'm removing sdb9, after clean > mount. > > > david Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- vi vi vi: the Editor of the Beast. ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
