Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: fix wrong missing device counter decrease

[Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:38:01PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> The missing devices are accounted by its own fs device, for example
> the missing devices in seed filesystem will be accounted by the fs device
> of the seed filesystem, not by the new filesystem which is based on
> the seed filesystem, so when we remove the missing device in the
> seed filesystem, we should decrease the counter of its own fs device.
> Fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> This patch is against:
> [PATCH 8/9] Btrfs: fix unzeroed members in fs_devices when creating a fs from seed fs
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index daecfa5..4cfbe76 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char *device_path)
>  	device->fs_devices->total_devices--;
>  
>  	if (device->missing)
> -		root->fs_info->fs_devices->missing_devices--;
> +		device->fs_devices->missing_devices--;

But it is 'root->fs_info->fs_devices->missing_devices' that is increased in the
case of both read_one_dev() and add_missing_dev().

Well, in add_missing_dev(), they're consistent, but in read_one_dev(),
device->fs_devices could be a seed one, while root->fs_info->fs_devices is not.

Am I missing?

-liubo

>  
>  	next_device = list_entry(root->fs_info->fs_devices->devices.next,
>  				 struct btrfs_device, dev_list);
> -- 
> 1.9.3
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html