[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea37cf5a-242b-48f1-8b8b-f8d751ede70b@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:27:13 +0000
From: Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
CC: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik
<josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Filipe Manana
<fdmanana@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] btrfs: don't try to delete RAID stripe-extents
if we don't need to
On 09.01.25 16:15, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:39 PM Johannes Thumshirn
> <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 09.01.25 13:35, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> index 30f17eb7b6a8a1dfa9f66ed5508da42a70db1fa3..f060c04c7f76357e6d2c6ba78a8ba981e35645bd 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> @@ -478,8 +478,9 @@ static int run_test(test_func_t test, u32 sectorsize, u32 nodesize)
>>>> ret = PTR_ERR(root);
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>> - btrfs_set_super_compat_ro_flags(root->fs_info->super_copy,
>>>> + btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags(root->fs_info->super_copy,
>>>> BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RAID_STRIPE_TREE);
>>> This hunk seems unrelated to the rest of the patch, could be fixed in
>>> a different patch in case it actually solves any problem (probably
>>> not, but it's an incompat feature so it should be changed anyway).
>>
>> I'll make it a separate patch. RST is an incompat feature not a compat one.
>>
>> With this patch btrfs_delete_raid_extent() starts checking the incompat
>> bit so it is fixing a 'problem'.
>
> Yes, but for that all that's needed is this call:
>
> btrfs_set_fs_incompat(root->fs_info, RAID_STRIPE_TREE);
>
> Right?
>
> Replacing the btrfs_set_super_compat_ro_flags() call with a call to
> btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags() shouldn't be needed for this patch.
> That's what I was referring to.
>
Ah now I see the problem. I used btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags()
instead of btrfs_set_fs_incompat() *facepalm*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists