On 2/22/24 03:19, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:09:59PM +0530, Anand Jain wrote:
On 2/20/24 23:42, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:08:00PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7:17 AM David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dev/Developer-s-FAQ.html#ordering
So this introduces a regression.
$ ./check btrfs/14[6-9] btrfs/15[8-9]
Thanks, with this I can reproduce it and have some ideas what could go
wrong.
Thanks indeed.
I tested the following, it fixes the fsid problems and has passed full
fstests run. The temp-fsid test coverage needs to be done still.
@@ -1388,6 +1388,10 @@ struct btrfs_device *btrfs_scan_one_device(const char *path, blk_mode_t flags,
if (ret)
btrfs_warn(NULL, "lookup bdev failed for path %s: %d",
path, ret);
+ if (devt) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "free stale devt (for path %s)\n", path);
+ btrfs_free_stale_devices(devt, NULL);
+ }
Right. I had this in mind to check for the stale devices. I'll do.
Anand
