On 11/24/2014 03:59 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE is not an extent op, stop treating it as such. This > sneaked in with discard patches - it's one of the three osd ops (the > other two are CEPH_OSD_OP_TRUNCATE and CEPH_OSD_OP_ZERO) that discard > is implemented with. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxxx> Is the CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE used in ceph_zero_partial_object() an extent op? If it is not, you should get rid of the BUG_ON() in osd_req_op_extent_init() that allows CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE. And if that's the case it looks like that function or ceph_osdc_new_request() handle CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE properly--so it's not treated as an extent op. And: osd_req_encode_op() encodes a CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE as an extent op as well. If it *can* be an extent op (but just not as used by RBD) then it warrants a comment here that explains why it is not being initialized as an extent op. -Alex > --- > drivers/block/rbd.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c > index 27b71a0b72d0..1df0802bf6cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c > +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c > @@ -2370,8 +2370,12 @@ static void rbd_img_obj_request_fill(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_request, > opcode = CEPH_OSD_OP_READ; > } > > - osd_req_op_extent_init(osd_request, num_ops, opcode, offset, length, > - 0, 0); > + if (opcode == CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE) > + osd_req_op_init(osd_request, num_ops, opcode); > + else > + osd_req_op_extent_init(osd_request, num_ops, opcode, > + offset, length, 0, 0); > + > if (obj_request->type == OBJ_REQUEST_BIO) > osd_req_op_extent_osd_data_bio(osd_request, num_ops, > obj_request->bio_list, length); > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
