On 07/23/2018 10:01 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:10PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the num_devices, use warn instead of bug. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 7f4973fc2b52..0f4c512aa6b4 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -3726,7 +3726,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices; btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace); if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) { - BUG_ON(num_devices < 1); + WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);I wonder if there any valid cases when there are 0 devices when balance is started, ie. before num_devices gets decremented.
num_devices counts the in-memory devices of a fsid. On a mounted FS num_devices > 0 always.
The WARN_ON is either redundant or should be turned to a proper sanity check.
Yes is redundant. I suggest to delete it. Thanks, Anand
num_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
-- 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
