On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 03:52:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > btrfs_qgroup_release/free_data() only returns 0 or minus error > number(ENOMEM is the only possible error).
btrfs_qgroup_release_data -> __btrfs_qgroup_release_data will not allocate the ulist anymore, and there are no errors propagated from clear_record_extent_bits (just 0), but there are still some unhandled cases. So here a negative value should be expected anyway. > This is normally good enough, but sometimes we need the accurate byte > number it freed/released. > > Change it to return actually released/freed bytenr number instead of 0 > for success. > And slightly modify related extent_changeset structure, since in btrfs > one none-hole data extent won't be larger than 128M, so "unsigned int" > is large enough for the use case. > - u64 bytes_changed; > + unsigned int bytes_changed; > @@ -2875,6 +2875,7 @@ static int __btrfs_qgroup_release_data(struct inode > *inode, u64 start, u64 len, > btrfs_qgroup_free_refroot(BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info, > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->objectid, > changeset.bytes_changed); > + ret = changeset.bytes_changed; This relies on the 128M limit, which will fit to int when assigned. I'm thinking about the signedness, it makes sense to use unsigned for bytes_changed, but we also need the negative error returned. Probably ok. > out: > ulist_release(&changeset.range_changed); > return 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
