On 3.12.18 г. 19:25 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:29:27AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> - ret = find_free_dev_extent(trans, device, min_free,
>>> - &dev_offset, NULL);
>>> - if (!ret)
>>> + if (!find_free_dev_extent(trans, device, min_free,
>>> + &dev_offset, NULL))
>>
>> This can return -ENOMEM;
>>
>>> @@ -2856,8 +2856,7 @@ static int btrfs_relocate_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info
>>> *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset)
>>> */
>>> lockdep_assert_held(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
>>>
>>> - ret = btrfs_can_relocate(fs_info, chunk_offset);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> + if (!btrfs_can_relocate(fs_info, chunk_offset))
>>> return -ENOSPC;
>>
>> And ends up converting -ENOMEM to -ENOSPC.
>>
>> Its better to propagate the accurate error.
>
> Right, converting to bool is obscuring the reason why the functions
> fail. Making the code simpler at this cost does not look like a good
> idea to me. I'll remove the patch from misc-next for now.
The patch itself does not make the code more obscure than currently is,
because even if ENOMEM is returned it's still converted to ENOSPC in
btrfs_relocate_chunk.
>
