On 01/14/2014 02:40 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:09:02PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello David,
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:25:18PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Steps to reproduce:
# mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda8
# mount /dev/sda8 /mnt
# btrfs sub snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap1
# btrfs sub snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap2
# btrfs send /mnt/snap1 -p /mnt/snap2 -f /mnt/1
# dmesg
The problem is that we will sort clone roots(include @send_root), it
might push @send_root before thus @send_root's @send_in_progress will
be decreased twice.
Of course, the sort(). I think your fix adds some complexity that's not
necessary. Whether the clone_roots array is sorted is not important, we
just have to process each root once.
send_root becomes a clone_root member, so the missing part is to account
in the rollback counter:
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -4937,6 +4937,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct file *mnt_file, void __user
*arg_)
* for possible clone sources.
*/
sctx->clone_roots[sctx->clone_roots_cnt++].root = sctx->send_root;
+ clone_sources_to_rollback++;
Not really, If we fail to come here, we still need decrease @send_root.
Right. I was thinking if the code can be simplified somehow, but don't
have anything vastly better. Can you please add a comment to the first
branch that send_root is processed in the loop and not missed? It looks
unabalanced when it's handled just a few lines below and not in the 1st
loop.
Reasonable, i will send v3 for this patch and add some comments.
David, really thanks for you costing time to review and correct me.^_^
Thanks,
Wang
thanks,
david
--
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
