On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:00:41PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this
> area, now its save to remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 332e00e72b86..0a5251a34d58 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -2015,16 +2015,12 @@ void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev(struct
> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> }
>
> btrfs_close_bdev(srcdev);
> -
> call_rcu(&srcdev->rcu, free_device);
>
> /*
> - * unless fs_devices is seed fs, num_devices shouldn't go
> - * zero
> + * If this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices
> + * which is true in case of single device seeding fs.
Can you please rephrase the first part of the comment? I'm not sure I
understand what it's trying to say.
> */
> - BUG_ON(!fs_devices->num_devices && !fs_devices->seeding);
I think we could still keep the check as an ASSERT.
> -
> - /* if this is no devs we rather delete the fs_devices */
> if (!fs_devices->num_devices) {
> struct btrfs_fs_devices *tmp_fs_devices;
>
--
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
