Searched hist:"18 f687d5" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | send.c | 18f687d5 Tue Jan 07 03:25:19 CST 2014 Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Btrfs: fix protection between send and root deletion
We should gurantee that parent and clone roots can not be destroyed
during send, for this we have two ideas.
1.by holding @subvol_sem, this might be a nightmare, because it will
block all subvolumes deletion for a long time.
2.Miao pointed out we can reuse @send_in_progress, that mean we will
skip snapshot deletion if root sending is in progress.
Here we adopt the second approach since it won't block other subvolumes
deletion for a long time.
Besides in btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(), we only check first root
, if this root is involved in send, we return directly rather than
continue to check.There are several reasons about it:
1.this case happen seldomly.
2.after sending,cleaner thread can continue to drop that root.
3.make code simple
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
|
| H A D | transaction.c | 18f687d5 Tue Jan 07 03:25:19 CST 2014 Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Btrfs: fix protection between send and root deletion
We should gurantee that parent and clone roots can not be destroyed
during send, for this we have two ideas.
1.by holding @subvol_sem, this might be a nightmare, because it will
block all subvolumes deletion for a long time.
2.Miao pointed out we can reuse @send_in_progress, that mean we will
skip snapshot deletion if root sending is in progress.
Here we adopt the second approach since it won't block other subvolumes
deletion for a long time.
Besides in btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(), we only check first root
, if this root is involved in send, we return directly rather than
continue to check.There are several reasons about it:
1.this case happen seldomly.
2.after sending,cleaner thread can continue to drop that root.
3.make code simple
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
18f687d5 Tue Jan 07 03:25:19 CST 2014 Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Btrfs: fix protection between send and root deletion
We should gurantee that parent and clone roots can not be destroyed
during send, for this we have two ideas.
1.by holding @subvol_sem, this might be a nightmare, because it will
block all subvolumes deletion for a long time.
2.Miao pointed out we can reuse @send_in_progress, that mean we will
skip snapshot deletion if root sending is in progress.
Here we adopt the second approach since it won't block other subvolumes
deletion for a long time.
Besides in btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot(), we only check first root
, if this root is involved in send, we return directly rather than
continue to check.There are several reasons about it:
1.this case happen seldomly.
2.after sending,cleaner thread can continue to drop that root.
3.make code simple
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
|