From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30094C433F5 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B7E61164 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240429AbhIWKyy (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:54:54 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:52292 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236762AbhIWKyx (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:54:53 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF681FFA5; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:53:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1632394401; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n6n5yaPw5XDg1AsGl8GTlpO1rgvzlhLe38aP3VwPPW0=; b=nZfzPr/KVHKhxQL78sBxV4hc9/knKq/9WX8gcSoEKaEgaQ4o9Yu3mzhxjyDnafQkm6GphK 7WeBjMugQO7n1HNzh7mFzNVgUa0g1c4siwZnF5Ljxi1zfq2IMAysFcsFiHOa9NaAbqDKNS 8PGTXVxg7C/WSgBd65l/wlkZ1K0PJ5Q= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3CB513DCD; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id bgIzJaFcTGELbwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:53:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] clear_bit BTRFS_DEV_STATE_MISSING if the device->bdev is not NULL During mount. To: li zhang Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <1632330390-29793-1-git-send-email-zhanglikernel@gmail.com> <5679da1e-2422-69c5-b4f8-326802363f7c@suse.com> From: Nikolay Borisov Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 13:53:21 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 23.09.21 г. 13:10, li zhang wrote: > Sure, I would love to do it. > > To avoid ambiguity, Should I and write a test > case to detect whether clear the BTRFS_DEV_STATE_MISSING > if filesystem found a device, but it was marked to > BTRFS_DEV_STATE_MISSING. Yes, basically the idea is for the test case to fail without your patch and pass with your patch. That way we'll ensure this won't regress in the future.