Linux Btrfs filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] btrfs: push ->owner_root check into btrfs_read_extent_buffer
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:39:53 +0930	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b57a9598-b9b6-4466-8bec-536d06f780f9@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3487ee70ac2e8fd2c82027c892e91f12a4a47324.1713550368.git.josef@toxicpanda.com>



在 2024/4/20 03:46, Josef Bacik 写道:
> Currently we're only doing this in read_tree_block(), however
> btrfs_check_eb_owner() properly deals with ->owner_root being set to 0,
> and in fact we're duplicating this check in read_block_for_search().
> Push this check up into btrfs_read_extent_buffer() and fixup
> read_block_for_search() to just return the result from
> btrfs_read_extent_buffer() and drop the duplicate check.

Since end_bbio_meta_read() is already calling
btrfs_validate_extent_buffer() with bbio->parent_check copied from the
callers, can we just remove the btrfs_check_eb_owner() calls directly
from all the higher layer callers?

Even the check in btrfs_read_extent_buffer() seems unnecessary now.

Thanks,
Qu
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/ctree.c   | 7 +------
>   fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 ++----
>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> index 1a49b9232990..48aa14046343 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> @@ -1551,12 +1551,7 @@ read_block_for_search(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_path *p,
>   		if (ret) {
>   			free_extent_buffer(tmp);
>   			btrfs_release_path(p);
> -			return -EIO;
> -		}
> -		if (btrfs_check_eb_owner(tmp, btrfs_root_id(root))) {
> -			free_extent_buffer(tmp);
> -			btrfs_release_path(p);
> -			return -EUCLEAN;
> +			return ret;
>   		}
>
>   		if (unlock_up)
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index c2dc88f909b0..64523dc1060d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -251,6 +251,8 @@ int btrfs_read_extent_buffer(struct extent_buffer *eb,
>   	if (failed && !ret && failed_mirror)
>   		btrfs_repair_eb_io_failure(eb, failed_mirror);
>
> +	if (!ret)
> +		ret = btrfs_check_eb_owner(eb, check->owner_root);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>
> @@ -635,10 +637,6 @@ struct extent_buffer *read_tree_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 bytenr,
>   		free_extent_buffer_stale(buf);
>   		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>   	}
> -	if (btrfs_check_eb_owner(buf, check->owner_root)) {
> -		free_extent_buffer_stale(buf);
> -		return ERR_PTR(-EUCLEAN);
> -	}
>   	return buf;
>
>   }

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-23 22:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-19 18:16 [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: snapshot delete cleanups Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:16 ` [PATCH 01/15] btrfs: don't do find_extent_buffer in do_walk_down Josef Bacik
2024-04-23 21:55   ` Qu Wenruo
2024-04-19 18:16 ` [PATCH 02/15] btrfs: push ->owner_root check into btrfs_read_extent_buffer Josef Bacik
2024-04-23 22:09   ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2024-04-19 18:16 ` [PATCH 03/15] btrfs: use btrfs_read_extent_buffer in do_walk_down Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:16 ` [PATCH 04/15] btrfs: push lookup_info into walk_control Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 05/15] btrfs: move the eb uptodate code into it's own helper Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 06/15] btrfs: remove need_account in do_walk_down Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 07/15] btrfs: unify logic to decide if we need to walk down into a node Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 08/15] btrfs: extract the reference dropping code into it's own helper Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 09/15] btrfs: don't BUG_ON ENOMEM in walk_down_proc Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 10/15] btrfs: handle errors from ref mods during UPDATE_BACKREF Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 11/15] btrfs: replace BUG_ON with ASSERT in walk_down_proc Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 12/15] btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete Josef Bacik
2024-04-24 12:23   ` David Sterba
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 13/15] btrfs: convert correctness BUG_ON()'s to ASSERT()'s in walk_up_proc Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 14/15] btrfs: handle errors from btrfs_dec_ref properly Josef Bacik
2024-04-19 18:17 ` [PATCH 15/15] btrfs: add documentation around snapshot delete Josef Bacik
2024-04-24 12:31 ` [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: snapshot delete cleanups David Sterba

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b57a9598-b9b6-4466-8bec-536d06f780f9@gmx.com \
    --to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox