Excerpts from David Sterba's message of 2011-06-24 11:58:20 -0400:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:54:26PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are
> > supposed
> > to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't
> > u
A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are supposed
to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't update
the ctl->total_bitmaps counter when we remove entries from the tree. This patch
fixes this problem and we should be good to go again. Thanks
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:54:26PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are supposed
> to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't update
> the ctl->total_bitmaps counter when we remove entries from the tree. This
A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are supposed
to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't update
the ctl->total_bitmaps counter when we remove entries from the tree. This patch
fixes this problem and we should be good to go again. Thanks
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:51:37PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are supposed
> to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't update
> the ctl->total_bitmaps counter when we remove entries from the tree. This
A user reported this bug again where we have more bitmaps than we are supposed
to. This is because we failed to load the free space cache, but don't update
the ctl->total_bitmaps counter when we remove entries from the tree. This patch
fixes this problem and we should be good to go again. Thanks
