On 28.05.2018 19:12, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 03:26:58PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>>>> dmesg looks like:
>>>>>> [ 6.649213] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2838 at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:303
>>>>>> record_root_in_trans+0x38/0xd0
>
> Found in the logs. I reported it to the patch that added the assertion
> but I did not suspect your patches.
>
>>>>>> [ 6.662909] create_pending_snapshot+0x1ab/0xd00
>
>> So the answer to your question is "yes", in which case indeed this patch
>> will have to be reverted.
>
> Both patches removed from misc-next.
I think 1/2 is actually safe, it's removing something from the
transaction path without affecting the overall logic which should be a
small win.
> --
> 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
