Re: [PATCH 0/5][v2] Deal with a few ENOSPC corner cases

Nikolay Borisov
2020-03-25T15:52:43Z

On 25.03.20 г. 17:50 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:58:04PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> v1->v2:
>> - Dropped "btrfs: only take normal tickets into account in
>> may_commit_transaction" because "btrfs: only check priority tickets for
>> priority flushing" should actually fix the problem, and Nikolay pointed out
>> that evict uses the priority list but is allowed to commit, so we need to take
>> into account priority tickets sometimes.
>> - Added "btrfs: allow us to use up to 90% of the global rsv for" so that the
>> global rsv change was separate from the serialization patch.
>> - Fixed up some changelogs.
>> - Dropped an extra trace_printk that made it into v2.
>
> The patchset seems to be based on some other, code I think it's the
> tickets for data chunks. The compilation fails because
> BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_DATA is not defined, but it's mentioned in several
> patches.
>
> If the base patchset is a hard requirement then both would need to go in
> at the same time, otherwise if it's possible to refresh this branch I
> could add it to for-next now.
>

No, the data ticket is not a hard requirement. I've tested this branch
on our SLE kernels without it. So the conflict resolution is really mino
- simply removing the conditions involving BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_DATA.