[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08b5cf14-8b00-4a19-ae98-e83e83357688@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:25:54 +0930
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] btrfs: update stripe_extent delete loop
assumptions
在 2024/7/11 15:51, Johannes Thumshirn 写道:
> From: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
>
> btrfs_delete_raid_extent() was written under the assumption, that it's
> call-chain always passes a start, length tuple that matches a single
> extent. But btrfs_delete_raid_extent() is called by
> do_free_extent_acounting() which in term is called by > __btrfs_free_extent().
But from the call site __btrfs_free_extent(), it is still called for a
single extent.
Or we will get an error and abort the current transaction.
>
> But this call-chain passes in a start address and a length that can
> possibly match multiple on-disk extents.
Mind to give a more detailed example on this?
Thanks,
Qu
>
> To make this possible, we have to adjust the start and length of each
> btree node lookup, to not delete beyond the requested range.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> index fd56535b2289..6f65be334637 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,11 @@ int btrfs_delete_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 start, u64 le
> if (ret)
> break;
>
> + start += key.offset;
> + length -= key.offset;
> + if (length == 0)
> + break;
> +
> btrfs_release_path(path);
> }
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists