On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:29:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:23:49PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote:
> > From: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
> > +static void queue_rescan_worker(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > +{
> > + mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> > + if (btrfs_fs_closing(fs_info)) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + if (WARN_ON(fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running)) {
>
> The warning is quite noisy, I see it after tests btrfs/ 017, 022, 124,
> 139, 153. Is it necessary for non-debugging builds?
>
> The tested branch was full for-next so it could be your patchset
> interacting with other fixes, but the warning noise level question still
> stands.
So it must be something with the rest of misc-next or for-next patches,
current for 4.17 queue does show the warning at all, and the patch is ok
for merge.
--
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
