Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use num_device to check for the last surviving seed device

[PATCH 0/2] Fix device count check btrfs_rm_devices() and add comments · Anand Jain <hidden> · 2021-09-01
[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use num_device to check for the last surviving seed device · Anand Jain <hidden> · 2021-09-01
Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use num_device to check for the last surviving seed device · Nikolay Borisov <hidden> · 2021-09-01
Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use num_device to check for the last surviving seed device · David Sterba <hidden> · 2021-09-02
Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use num_device to check for the last surviving seed device · Anand Jain <hidden> · 2021-09-03
[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: add comments for device counts in struct btrfs_fs_devices · Anand Jain <hidden> · 2021-09-01
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix device count check btrfs_rm_devices() and add comments · Anand Jain <hidden> · 2021-09-20

From: David Sterba <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-02 15:31:44

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 12:22:30PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:


On 1.09.21 г. 9:43, Anand Jain wrote:

quoted

For both sprout and seed fsids,
 btrfs_fs_devices::num_devices provides device count including missing
 btrfs_fs_devices::open_devices provides device count excluding missing

We create a dummy struct btrfs_device for the missing device, so
num_devices != open_devices when there is a missing device.

In btrfs_rm_devices() we wrongly check for %cur_devices->open_devices
before freeing the seed fs_devices. Instead we should check for
%cur_devices->num_devices.

Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <redacted>

Is there a sequence of step that reproduce the problem?

Yeah that would be great, I don't have much idea what actually happens
here and what is the bug.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help