From 3dc09ec895f098cedd789a620c90ff1bf7f779a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josef Bacik Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:57:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill invalid ASSERT() in process_all_refs() MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Suppose you have the following tree in snap1 on a file system mounted with -o inode_cache so that inode numbers are recycled └── [ 258] a └── [ 257] b and then you remove b, rename a to c, and then re-create b in c so you have the following tree └── [ 258] c └── [ 257] b and then you try to do an incremental send you will hit ASSERT(pending_move == 0); in process_all_refs(). This is because we assume that any recycling of inodes will not have a pending change in our path, which isn't the case. This is the case for the DELETE side, since we want to remove the old file using the old path, but on the create side we could have a pending move and need to do the normal pending rename dance. So remove this ASSERT() and put a comment about why we ignore pending_move. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/send.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index efe129fe2678..a87675ffd02b 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c @@ -4268,10 +4268,12 @@ static int process_all_refs(struct send_ctx *sctx, } btrfs_release_path(path); + /* + * We don't actually care about pending_move as we are simply + * re-creating this inode and will be rename'ing it into place once we + * rename the parent directory. + */ ret = process_recorded_refs(sctx, &pending_move); - /* Only applicable to an incremental send. */ - ASSERT(pending_move == 0); - out: btrfs_free_path(path); return ret; -- 2.20.1