Hi David,
On 01/22/2014 02:16 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32:38AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Your fix makes sure that the deleted root will not get cleaned and stays
during the send. Only after it finishes it will be cleaned. Now, what if
send fails or is interrupted?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:44:14PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
So we disagree, I see a reason for the deletion protection and will do
the patch myself. Let's see if we can get more user feedback then.
I'm NAKing this patch in current state, if it helps anything.
Both ways are ok for me
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32:38AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Your fix makes sure that the deleted root will not get cleaned and stays
during the send. Only after it finishes it will be cleaned. Now, what if
send fails or is interrupted? There's no way to redo it. Yes the user
can be blamed
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:22:56AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:27:45 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
The root what is about to be sent out may be deleted after we get it, if
there is no in-memory i-node in it, it will be inserted into the dead_roots
list
immediately, then the
On wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:40:38 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:22:56AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:27:45 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
The root what is about to be sent out may be deleted after we get it, if
there is no in-memory i-node in it, it will be
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:25:19PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -1971,6 +1971,19 @@ int btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(struct btrfs_root
*root)
}
root = list_first_entry(fs_info-dead_roots,
On mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:27:45 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:25:19PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -1971,6 +1971,19 @@ int btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(struct
btrfs_root *root)
}
root =
We should gurantee that parent and clone roots can not be destroyed
during send, for this we have two ideas.
1.by holding @subvol_sem, this might be a nightmare, because it will
block all subvolumes deletion for a long time.
2.Miao pointed out we can reuse @send_in_progress, that mean we will
