Re: [PATCH 00/13] Serious fixes for different error paths

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:22:04AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> A lot of these were in previous versions of the relocation error handling
> patches.  I added a few since the last go around.  All of these do not rely on
> the error handling patches, and some of them are quite important otherwise we
> get corruption if we get errors in certain spots.  There's also a few lockdep
> fixes and such.  These really need to go in ASAP, regardless of when the
> relocation error handling patches are merged.  They're mostly small and self
> contained, the only "big" one being the one that tracks the root owner for
> relocation reads, which is to resolve the remaining class of lockdep errors we
> get because of an improper lockdep class set on the extent buffer.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef
> 
> Josef Bacik (13):
>   btrfs: don't get an EINTR during drop_snapshot for reloc
>   btrfs: initialize test inodes location
>   btrfs: fix reloc root leak with 0 ref reloc roots on recovery
>   btrfs: splice remaining dirty_bg's onto the transaction dirty bg list
>   btrfs: do not WARN_ON() if we can't find the reloc root
>   btrfs: add ASSERT()'s for deleting backref cache nodes
>   btrfs: do not double free backref nodes on error
>   btrfs: abort the transaction if we fail to inc ref in btrfs_copy_root
>   btrfs: modify the new_root highest_objectid under a ref count
>   btrfs: fix lockdep splat in btrfs_recover_relocation
>   btrfs: keep track of the root owner for relocation reads
>   btrfs: do not cleanup upper nodes in btrfs_backref_cleanup_node
>   btrfs: don't clear ret in btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups

Patch 2 has been merged, patch 9 dropped due to the inode number
cleanups in "btrfs: make btrfs_root::free_objectid hold the next
available objectid". Most of them are reviewed, I'll add the series to
for-next and continue merging to misc-next and then to -rc eventually.
Thanks.