Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] btrfs: don't try to delete RAID stripe-extents if we don't need to

[Johannes Thumshirn]

On 09.01.25 16:15, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:39 PM Johannes Thumshirn
> <Johannes.Thumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 09.01.25 13:35, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> index 30f17eb7b6a8a1dfa9f66ed5508da42a70db1fa3..f060c04c7f76357e6d2c6ba78a8ba981e35645bd 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c
>>>> @@ -478,8 +478,9 @@ static int run_test(test_func_t test, u32 sectorsize, u32 nodesize)
>>>>                   ret = PTR_ERR(root);
>>>>                   goto out;
>>>>           }
>>>> -       btrfs_set_super_compat_ro_flags(root->fs_info->super_copy,
>>>> +       btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags(root->fs_info->super_copy,
>>>>                                           BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RAID_STRIPE_TREE);
>>> This hunk seems unrelated to the rest of the patch, could be fixed in
>>> a different patch in case it actually solves any problem (probably
>>> not, but it's an incompat feature so it should be changed anyway).
>>
>> I'll make it a separate patch. RST is an incompat feature not a compat one.
>>
>> With this patch btrfs_delete_raid_extent() starts checking the incompat
>> bit so it is fixing a 'problem'.
> 
> Yes, but for that all that's needed is this call:
> 
> btrfs_set_fs_incompat(root->fs_info, RAID_STRIPE_TREE);
> 
> Right?
> 
> Replacing the btrfs_set_super_compat_ro_flags() call with a call to
> btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags() shouldn't be needed for this patch.
> That's what I was referring to.
> 

Ah now I see the problem. I used btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags() 
instead of btrfs_set_fs_incompat() *facepalm*