On 2019/2/12 下午10:19, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 01:07:19PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> @@ -1288,11 +1290,13 @@ static int find_parent_nodes(struct >>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans, >>> ret = -EIO; >>> goto out; >>> } >>> - btrfs_tree_read_lock(eb); >>> + if (!path->skip_locking) >>> + btrfs_tree_read_lock(eb); >>> btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw(eb, BTRFS_READ_LOCK); >> >> This btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw() or the btrfs_set_lock_blocking_read() >> in latest misc-next call need @eb to be read locked first. >> >> So this line should also be in the (!path->skip_locking) branch, and >> such modification solves the BUG_ON() caused by btrfs/007. > > Thanks. btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw is gone from misc-next so the patch > needs a refresh and resend, besides passing fstests of course. > Yup, although the conflict is pretty small, just change the btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw() to btrfs_set_lock_blocking_read() will do it.
Does Josef or me need to resend the patch or would you mind to fold the change? Thanks, Qu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
