Re: [PATCH 4/7] btrfs: qgroup: try to flush qgroup space when we get -EDQUOT

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 06:41:53PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/08/2021 18:39, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2021/8/13 下午6:30, Anand Jain wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 13/08/2021 18:26, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 2021/8/13 下午5:55, Anand Jain wrote:
> > > > > From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit c53e9653605dbf708f5be02902de51831be4b009 upstream
> > > > 
> > > > This lacks certain upstream fixes for it:
> > > > 
> > > > f9baa501b4fd6962257853d46ddffbc21f27e344 btrfs: fix deadlock when
> > > > cloning inline extents and using qgroups
> > > > 
> > > > 4d14c5cde5c268a2bc26addecf09489cb953ef64 btrfs: don't flush from
> > > > btrfs_delayed_inode_reserve_metadata
> > > > 
> > > > 6f23277a49e68f8a9355385c846939ad0b1261e7 btrfs: qgroup: don't commit
> > > > transaction when we already hold the handle
> > > > 
> > > > All these fixes are to ensure we don't try to flush in context where we
> > > > shouldn't.
> > > > 
> > > > Without them, it can hit various deadlock.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Qu,
> > > 
> > >     Thanks for taking a look. I will send it in v2.
> > 
> > I guess you only need to add the missing fixes?
> 
>   Yeah, maybe it's better to send it as a new set.

So should I drop the existing patches and wait for a whole new series,
or will you send these as an additional set?

And at least one of the above commits needs to go to the 5.10.y tree, I
did not check them all...

thanks,

greg k-h