Searched hist:ca9d473a (Results 1 – 1 of 1) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | ctree.c | ca9d473a Thu Aug 20 10:46:08 CDT 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: use BTRFS_NESTED_NEW_ROOT for double splits
I've made this change separate since it requires both of the newly added
NESTED flags and I didn't want to slip it into one of those changes.
If we do a double split of a node we can end up doing a
BTRFS_NESTED_SPLIT on level 0, which throws lockdep off because it
appears as a double lock. Since we're maxed out on subclasses, use
BTRFS_NESTED_NEW_ROOT if we had to do a double split. This is OK
because we won't have to do a double split if we had to insert a new
root, and the new root would be at a higher level anyway.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
ca9d473a Thu Aug 20 10:46:08 CDT 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: use BTRFS_NESTED_NEW_ROOT for double splits
I've made this change separate since it requires both of the newly added
NESTED flags and I didn't want to slip it into one of those changes.
If we do a double split of a node we can end up doing a
BTRFS_NESTED_SPLIT on level 0, which throws lockdep off because it
appears as a double lock. Since we're maxed out on subclasses, use
BTRFS_NESTED_NEW_ROOT if we had to do a double split. This is OK
because we won't have to do a double split if we had to insert a new
root, and the new root would be at a higher level anyway.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|