Hi all,
On Fri, 1 May 2020 10:24:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>
> between commit:
>
> fcc99734d1d4 ("btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing of fs_info::journal_info")
>
> from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
>
> f12ca53a6fd6 ("btrfs: force chunk allocation if our global rsv is larger than metadata")
>
> from the btrfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index 2d5498136e5e,e4dbd8e3c641..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@@ -666,15 -674,17 +672,26 @@@ got_it
> current->journal_info = h;
>
> /*
> + * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
> + * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
> + * transaction.
> + *
> + * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
> + * or we can deadlock.
> + */
> + btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
> +
> + * If the space_info is marked ALLOC_FORCE then we'll get upgraded to
> + * ALLOC_FORCE the first run through, and then we won't allocate for
> + * anybody else who races in later. We don't care about the return
> + * value here.
> + */
> + if (do_chunk_alloc && num_bytes) {
> + u64 flags = h->block_rsv->space_info->flags;
> + btrfs_chunk_alloc(h, btrfs_get_alloc_profile(fs_info, flags),
> + CHUNK_ALLOC_NO_FORCE);
> + }
> +
> return h;
>
> join_fail:
I fixed the missing comment start in my resolution ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpsGveKf2I6f.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
