Btrfs devel - Dec 2010 - [PATCH] Btrfs: do not BUG if we fail to remove the orphan item for dead snapshots

Not being able to delete an orphan item isn''t a horrible thing.  The
worst that
happens is the next time around we try and do the orphan cleanup and we
can''t
find the referenced object and just delete the item and move on.  Thanks,

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |    1 -
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 8aed05e..8c26441 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -6354,7 +6354,6 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
 		if (ret > 0) {
 			ret = btrfs_del_orphan_item(trans, tree_root,
 						    root->root_key.objectid);
-			BUG_ON(ret);
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
1.6.6.1

--
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

01:25, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Not being able to delete an orphan item isn''t a horrible thing. 
The worst that
> happens is the next time around we try and do the orphan cleanup and we
can''t
> find the referenced object and just delete the item and move on.  Thanks,
> 
Would be better to add code comment? Otherwise later people may wonder why
the return value is not checked and see it as a bug.
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 8aed05e..8c26441 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -6354,7 +6354,6 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
>  		if (ret > 0) {
>  			ret = btrfs_del_orphan_item(trans, tree_root,
>  						    root->root_key.objectid);
> -			BUG_ON(ret);
>  		}
>  	}
>  
--
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

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:16:15PM +0800, Li Zefan
wrote:
> 01:25, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Not being able to delete an orphan item isn''t a horrible
thing.  The worst that
> > happens is the next time around we try and do the orphan cleanup and
we can''t
> > find the referenced object and just delete the item and move on. 
Thanks,
> > 
> 
> Would be better to add code comment? Otherwise later people may wonder why
> the return value is not checked and see it as a bug.
>
Comments are against Btrfs'' coding style guidlines.

Josef 
--
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

Excerpts from Josef Bacik''s message of 2010-12-10 08:30:36
-0500:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:16:15PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > 01:25, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > Not being able to delete an orphan item isn''t a horrible
thing.  The worst that
> > > happens is the next time around we try and do the orphan cleanup
and we can''t
> > > find the referenced object and just delete the item and move on. 
Thanks,
> > > 
> > 
> > Would be better to add code comment? Otherwise later people may wonder
why
> > the return value is not checked and see it as a bug.
> >
> 
> Comments are against Btrfs'' coding style guidlines.
But not the new and improved coding style guidelines ;)

-chris
--
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