On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:47:42AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > >>>+ /* replace the sysfs entry */ > >>>+ rm_device_membership(fs_info, src_device); > >>>+ add_device_membership(fs_info, tgt_device); > >>>+ > >>> btrfs_rm_dev_replace_blocked(fs_info); > >>> > >>> btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev(fs_info, src_device); > >> > >>569 btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked(fs_info); > >>570 > >> > >>The comment that follows says > >> > >>571 /* > >>572 * this is again a consistent state where no dev_replace > >>procedure > >>573 * is running, the target device is part of the > >>filesystem, the > >>574 * source device is not part of the filesystem anymore and > >>its 1st > >>575 * superblock is scratched out so that it is no longer > >>marked to > >>576 * belong to this filesystem. > >>577 */ > >> > >>and I think this is the right place to put the sysfs updates, because the > >>srcdev is processed. > > > >Looking into this, will update. Thanks for the review. > > btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev() would destroy the btrfs_device of > src_device, and I am removing its sys/fs entry before we destroy > btrfs_device of src_device. Which is logically correct.
I agree, my analysis was wrong. -- 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
