On 09/02/2016 03:46 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
Currently, btrfs_relocate_chunk() is removing relocated BG by itself. But
the work can be done by btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() (and it's better since it
trim the BG). Let's dedupe the code.
While btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() is already hitting the relocated
On 09/05/2016 12:32 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
2016-09-02 (金) の 09:35 -0400 に Josef Bacik さんは書きました:
On 09/02/2016 03:46 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
Currently, btrfs_relocate_chunk() is removing relocated BG by
itself. But
the work can be done by btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() (and it's better
since it
tri
2016-09-02 (金) の 09:35 -0400 に Josef Bacik さんは書きました:
> On 09/02/2016 03:46 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> >
> > Currently, btrfs_relocate_chunk() is removing relocated BG by
> > itself. But
> > the work can be done by btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() (and it's better
> > since it
> > trim the BG). Let's dedup
On 09/02/2016 03:46 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
Currently, btrfs_relocate_chunk() is removing relocated BG by itself. But
the work can be done by btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() (and it's better since it
trim the BG). Let's dedupe the code.
While btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() is already hitting the relocated
Currently, btrfs_relocate_chunk() is removing relocated BG by itself. But
the work can be done by btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() (and it's better since it
trim the BG). Let's dedupe the code.
While btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() is already hitting the relocated BG, it
skip the BG since the BG has "ro" flag
