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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 AF173C3F2D1 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8DC20848 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="BC/K0PY9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726142AbgCENyL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:54:11 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:41549 "EHLO mail-qk1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726036AbgCENyL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:54:11 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id b5so5309012qkh.8 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 05:54:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zPXoKiWvKnYYVOFZRxe1CyyL7gay2zdYSa9MnMI6QkI=; b=BC/K0PY9T8TS9pT5BAqwZSbBsJFPHsPmv61XqbQwOwxnfjR0jzUIEGOprCvVHDohCF g4MESc0EVi+aJbe3rN8bg9VnxEYlwGIj4DVK4EQ5BVaHSUVwoMIc6kJNcJv291WgmKCp IgZ5zIJVNklTrU0GhBB7qoG9g8vFpmptHUrf79+xq04KQ9XyIDfFcGOkWd1RBo7uiYAD ykKofPmpGVfjhmbaPo1zEcxFEigRiVE+QxkaK503FP3nr6ALV3Qku0uoKdB51i0ZcUV2 Bj7QtEsc3KVdy8aqsVtSHiq21FvW+vgAjcZCjDz1go6u1PHY9X05QBArFaYKhcq4tfgJ bQAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zPXoKiWvKnYYVOFZRxe1CyyL7gay2zdYSa9MnMI6QkI=; b=TG7NDWF9m3nubfwGBw6KQaaaV4VWvDR2hefC0R/lBbpgj0B7AY0ThN7aICDijHPhqE K/9gTsARhA+wb8jWL7XTuMzFGsOLJYLJ+QpYQOd0YPbYnWSIm1mvTj1H0FJ2uDCWSWQD kuIlPd13Y23feVl8NqF6oWjmb3ed2bpAIUjg+QK7TVWzzXdykSp0Q09LMknkrRFEpnQu f66du20yBOCEUSwdsOZ/dar7dvmnC0OLzNXO/gVg6/G5Eyq0PHdeBH6nYsQeTm+IYJMA 0fLKRLuo/tCmbA6n4sM+qaHw5xgWEytNp2Tog/pjSA6kpHobigEOOJe/GRGUNvVNuPXJ CIMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ02smCkgSfcMbAGbINSERJfkB2zASipGsEWSjSBctLcQcCw/9G2 +xGNLOILup7sbH+FWi/RpXFvJQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtDinFFtePFv5vdg7+CvlG2eKrQaWe7uHETBEC5fVNRUBlXZSU/7TEvX86Dg1hAkgkYWLaYiw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:148e:: with SMTP id w14mr8299897qkj.473.1583416448999; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 05:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ([107.15.81.208]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l16sm15369819qkk.118.2020.03.05.05.54.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2020 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: clear BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE before dropping the reloc root To: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com References: <20200304161830.2360-1-josef@toxicpanda.com> <20200304161830.2360-7-josef@toxicpanda.com> <21e4b656-af48-d10c-c549-11770eba541a@gmx.com> From: Josef Bacik Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:54:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <21e4b656-af48-d10c-c549-11770eba541a@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 3/5/20 6:41 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2020/3/5 上午12:18, Josef Bacik wrote: >> We were doing the clear dance for the reloc root after doing the drop of >> the reloc root, which means we have a giant window where we could miss >> having BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE unset and the reloc_root == NULL. > > Still, I can't see the problem where we have BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE > and reloc_root == NULL. > > IMHO, that would cause anything wrong. Or is there anything I missed? > I was still hitting leaks and I was convinced it was because we were re-init'ing the reloc root, but I think that line of reasoning is just wrong. I'll reword the changelog, it's just a cosmetic thing at this point, not a real problem. Thanks, Josef