On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 03:55:57PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote: > This series is a follow-up to the series below [1]. The old series added > an assertion to btrfs_relocate_chunk() to check if it is protected > with sb_start_write(). However, it revealed another location we need > to add sb_start_write() [2]. > > Also, this series moved the ASSERT from btrfs_relocate_chunk() to > btrfs_relocate_block_group() because we do not need to call > sb_start_write() on a non-data block group [3]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1645157220.git.naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx/T/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1645157220.git.naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx/T/#e06eecc07ce1cd1e45bfd30a374bd2d15b4fd76d8 > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/YjMSaLIhKNcKUuHM@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Patch 1 adds sb_{start,end}_write() to the resumed async balancing. > > Patches 2 and 3 add an ASSERT to catch a future error. > > -- > v4: > - Fix subject of patch 2 (Filipe) > - Revise the comment for the ASSERT (Filipe) > v3: > - Only add sb_write_started(), which we really use. (Dave Chinner) > - Drop patch "btrfs: mark device addition as mnt_want_write_file" (Filipe Manana) > - Narrow asserting region to btrfs_relocate_block_group() and check only > when the BG is data BG. (Filipe Manana) > v2: > - Use mnt_want_write_file() instead of sb_start_write() for > btrfs_ioctl_add_dev() > - Drop bogus fixes tag > - Change the stable target to meaningful 4.9+ > > Naohiro Aota (3): > btrfs: mark resumed async balance as writing > fs: add a check function for sb_start_write() > btrfs: assert that relocation is protected with sb_start_write() Added to misc-next, with the comment of 3/3 updated according to Filipe's suggestion. Thanks.
