On Wed, August 07, 2013 at 23:03 (+0200), Josef Bacik wrote:
We can get ENOMEM trying to allocate dummy bufs for the rewind operation of
the
tree mod log. Instead of BUG_ON()'ing in this case pass up ENOMEM. I looked
back through the callers and I'm pretty sure I got everybody who did
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, August 07, 2013 at 23:03 (+0200), Josef Bacik wrote:
We can get ENOMEM trying to allocate dummy bufs for the rewind operation of
the
tree mod log. Instead of BUG_ON()'ing in this case pass up ENOMEM. I
looked
back
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
Weird patch formatting concerning extent_io.c, I assume there are no changes
in
extent_buffer_under_io and btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page, you just moved
btrfs_clone_extent_buffer, right? Perhaps --patience or --minimal could do
On Thu, August 08, 2013 at 16:28 (+0200), David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
Weird patch formatting concerning extent_io.c, I assume there are no changes
in
extent_buffer_under_io and btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page, you just moved
We can get ENOMEM trying to allocate dummy bufs for the rewind operation of the
tree mod log. Instead of BUG_ON()'ing in this case pass up ENOMEM. I looked
back through the callers and I'm pretty sure I got everybody who did BUG_ON(ret)
in this path. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
