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 | 6 ++++--
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 530a2fc..90d956c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -1037,7 +1037,8 @@ static noinline int find_next_chunk(struct btrfs_root
*root,
struct btrfs_key found_key;
path = btrfs_alloc_path();
- BUG_ON(!path);
+ if (!path)
+ return -ENOMEM;
key.objectid = objectid;
key.offset = (u64)-1;
@@ -2663,7 +2664,8 @@ static noinline int init_first_rw_device(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
ret = find_next_chunk(fs_info->chunk_root,
BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID, &chunk_offset);
- BUG_ON(ret);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
alloc_profile = BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA |
(fs_info->metadata_alloc_profile &
--
1.7.5.3
--
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
