From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:41584 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727404AbeHaSNU (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:13:20 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id h138-v6so1447280qke.8 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:05:38 -0400 From: Josef Bacik To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/35] btrfs: just delete pending bgs if we are aborted Message-ID: <20180831140537.iwlf6oaapqit6kmf@destiny> References: <20180830174225.2200-1-josef@toxicpanda.com> <20180830174225.2200-30-josef@toxicpanda.com> <8d7a8f25-285d-e98e-9094-fe16ed62ab78@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <8d7a8f25-285d-e98e-9094-fe16ed62ab78@suse.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:46:36AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 30.08.2018 20:42, Josef Bacik wrote: > > We still need to do all of the accounting cleanup for pending block > > groups if we abort. So set the ret to trans->aborted so if we aborted > > the cleanup happens and everybody is happy. > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > > --- > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > index 90f267f4dd0f..132a1157982c 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > @@ -10333,7 +10333,7 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans) > > struct btrfs_root *extent_root = fs_info->extent_root; > > struct btrfs_block_group_item item; > > struct btrfs_key key; > > - int ret = 0; > > + int ret = trans->aborted; > > This is really subtle and magical and not obvious from the context of > the patch, but if the transaction is aborted this will change the loop > to actually just delete all block groups in ->new_bgs. I'd rather have > an explicit loop for that honestly. We need it this way in case creating the bg's errors out anyway, there's no sense in adding a bunch of code to do something we have to handle already anyway. Thanks, Josef