On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:44:08AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > @@ -653,9 +700,29 @@ xfs_efi_item_recover(
> > fake.xefi_startblock = extp->ext_start;
> > fake.xefi_blockcount = extp->ext_len;
> >
> > - xfs_extent_free_get_group(mp, &fake);
> > - error = xfs_trans_free_extent(tp, efdp, &fake);
> > - xfs_extent_free_put_group(&fake);
> > + if (!requeue_only) {
> > + xfs_extent_free_get_group(mp, &fake);
> > + error = xfs_trans_free_extent(tp, efdp, &fake);
> > + xfs_extent_free_put_group(&fake);
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we can't free the extent without potentially deadlocking,
> > + * requeue the rest of the extents to a new so that they get
> > + * run again later with a new transaction context.
> > + */
> > + if (error == -EAGAIN || requeue_only) {
> > + error = xfs_free_extent_later(tp, fake.xefi_startblock,
> > + fake.xefi_blockcount,
> > + &XFS_RMAP_OINFO_ANY_OWNER,
> > + fake.xefi_type);
> > + if (!error) {
> > + requeue_only = true;
> > + error = 0;
>
> @error is already zero so this is redundant, right?
Yes. Forgot to remove it when I changed that code to continue and
have errors fall through to the common handling...
> If yes then I'll remove the line on commit,
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
