From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49068 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbeGLHVS (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:21:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: warn for num_devices below 0 To: Anand Jain , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20180710182241.23754-1-anand.jain@oracle.com> From: Nikolay Borisov Message-ID: <8a7b78aa-1a7f-9edd-e30b-d97d15a35331@suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:13:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180710182241.23754-1-anand.jain@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10.07.2018 21:22, Anand Jain wrote: > In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the > num_devices, use warn instead of bug. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > 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 eb78bb8d1108..ce6faeb8bcf8 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -3813,7 +3813,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices; > btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace); > if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) { > - BUG_ON(num_devices < 1); > + WARN_ON(num_devices < 1); Isn't dev_replace_is_ongoing && num_devices < 1 indeed a logical bug situation? Under what condition can it happen that you deem "non critical" ? > num_devices--; > } > btrfs_dev_replace_read_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace); >