| Message ID | 564B0F9C.6060707@googlemail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Under Review |
| Headers | show |
Holger Hoffstätte posted on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:29:32 +0100 as excerpted: > There's a regression in 4.4-rc since commit bc3094673f22 (btrfs: extend > balance filter usage to take minimum and maximum) in that existing > (non-ranged) balance with -dusage=x no longer works; all chunks are > skipped. Not being a dev I won't attempt to comment on the patch itself, but the title, please prefix the patch title with either btrfs: if it's for the kernel (as here), or btrfs-progs: if for userspace. I was a bit confused here, thinking userspace, when it's apparently a kernel patch. (The significance here being that I've not upgraded to 4.4- rc kernel yet, and now probably won't until this gets in, since I tend to use -dusage=x balance filters reasonably frequently. If I had already upgraded, I'd have probably dropped the patch into my autoapply dir until it was applied upstream.) So... [PATCH] Fix balance regression in 4.4-rc ... would become... [PATCH] btrfs: fix balance regression in 4.4-rc (Initial capitalization, fix/Fix, seems to be poster's choice.)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Holger Hoffstätte <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com> wrote: > There's a regression in 4.4-rc since commit bc3094673f22 > (btrfs: extend balance filter usage to take minimum and maximum) in that > existing (non-ranged) balance with -dusage=x no longer works; all chunks > are skipped. > > After staring at the code for a while and wondering why a non-ranged > balance would even need min and max thresholds (..which then were not > set correctly, leading to the bug) I realized that the only problem > was the fact that the filter functions were named wrong, thanks to > patching copypasta. Simply renaming both functions lets the existing > btrfs-progs call balance with -dusage=x and now the non-ranged filter > function is invoked, properly using only a single chunk limit. > > Signed-off-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com> > Fixes: bc3094673f22 ("btrfs: extend balance filter usage to take minimum and maximum") Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> Besides prefixing the title with "Btrfs: " as correctly pointed by Duncan, a better title would be like "Btrfs: fix broken balance usage filters", as it's a problem in the filters and not the balance code itself. Thanks for chasing and fixing this. > --- > --- linux-4.1.13/fs/btrfs/volumes.c 2015-11-16 22:34:27.475045363 +0100 > +++ linux-4.1.13-filters/fs/btrfs/volumes.c 2015-11-17 12:08:41.308898665 +0100 > @@ -3189,7 +3189,7 @@ > return 1; > } > > -static int chunk_usage_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset, > +static int chunk_usage_range_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset, > struct btrfs_balance_args *bargs) > { > struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache; > @@ -3222,7 +3222,7 @@ > return ret; > } > > -static int chunk_usage_range_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > +static int chunk_usage_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > u64 chunk_offset, struct btrfs_balance_args *bargs) > { > struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache; > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- linux-4.1.13/fs/btrfs/volumes.c 2015-11-16 22:34:27.475045363 +0100 +++ linux-4.1.13-filters/fs/btrfs/volumes.c 2015-11-17 12:08:41.308898665 +0100 @@ -3189,7 +3189,7 @@ return 1; } -static int chunk_usage_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset, +static int chunk_usage_range_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset, struct btrfs_balance_args *bargs) { struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache; @@ -3222,7 +3222,7 @@ return ret; } -static int chunk_usage_range_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, +static int chunk_usage_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset, struct btrfs_balance_args *bargs) { struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
There's a regression in 4.4-rc since commit bc3094673f22 (btrfs: extend balance filter usage to take minimum and maximum) in that existing (non-ranged) balance with -dusage=x no longer works; all chunks are skipped. After staring at the code for a while and wondering why a non-ranged balance would even need min and max thresholds (..which then were not set correctly, leading to the bug) I realized that the only problem was the fact that the filter functions were named wrong, thanks to patching copypasta. Simply renaming both functions lets the existing btrfs-progs call balance with -dusage=x and now the non-ranged filter function is invoked, properly using only a single chunk limit. Signed-off-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com> Fixes: bc3094673f22 ("btrfs: extend balance filter usage to take minimum and maximum") --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html