Re: [PATCH 0/3][v2] clean up how we mark block groups read only

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1446 bytes --]

Hi David,

This is also an important patchset, mostly to solve the false ENOSPC
from btrfs_inc_block_group_ro() calls.
One obvious example is btrfs/182 test case.

Would you mind to merge it for misc-next?

Thanks,
Qu

On 2020/1/17 下午10:07, Josef Bacik wrote:
> v1->v2:
> - Rebased onto misc-next.
> - Fixed a bug where we weren't adjusting space_info->bytes_readonly in the force
>   case.
> - Dropped the RFC, these are pretty important fixes.
> 
> -------------- Original email ----------------------
> Qu has been looking into ENOSPC during relocation and noticed some weirdness
> with inc_block_group_ro.  The problem is this code hasn't changed to keep up
> with the rest of the reservation system.  It still assumes that the amount of
> space used will always be less than the total space for the space info, which
> hasn't been true for years since I introduced overcommitting.  This logic is
> correct for DATA, but not for METADATA or SYSTEM.
> 
> The first few patches are just cleanups, and can probably be taken as is.  The
> final patch is the real meat of the problem to address Qu's issues.  This is an
> RFC because I'm elbow deep in another problem and haven't tested this beyond
> compile testing, but I think it'll work.  Once I've gotten a chance to test it
> and Qu has tested it I'll update the list if it's good to go as is, or send a V2
> with any changes.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]