On 09.07.24 09:18, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2024/7/9 16:02, Johannes Thumshirn 写道:
From: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx>
Update stripe extents in case a write to an already existing address
incoming.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
But still as I mentioned in the original thread, I'm wondering why
dev-replace of RST needs to update RST entry.
I'd prefer to do a dev-extent level copy so that no RST/chunk needs to
be updated, just like what we did for non-RST cases.
But so far the change should be good enough for us to continue the testing.
I /think/ I have a fix for the ASSERT() as well. It survived btrfs/060
once already (which it hasn't before) and it's trivial and I feel stupid
for it:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
index fd56535b2289..6b1c6004f94c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ int btrfs_delete_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans, u64 start, u64 le
/* That stripe ends before we start, we're done. */
if (found_end <= start)
break;
+ /* That stripe starts after we end, we're done as well */
+ if (found_start >= end)
+ break;
trace_btrfs_raid_extent_delete(fs_info, start, end,
found_start, found_end);