在 2025/7/1 17:51, Anand Jain 写道:
+#ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_EXPERIMENTAL
+static void btrfs_remove_bdev(struct super_block *sb, struct
block_device *bdev)
+{
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(sb);
+ struct btrfs_device *device;
+ struct btrfs_dev_lookup_args lookup_args = { .devt = bdev->bd_dev };
+ bool can_rw;
+
+ mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
+ device = btrfs_find_device(fs_info->fs_devices, &lookup_args);
+ if (!device) {
+ btrfs_warn(fs_info, "unable to find btrfs device for block
device '%pg'",
+ bdev);
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
+ return;
+ }
+ set_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_MISSING, &device->dev_state);
+ device->fs_devices->missing_devices++;
Where do we ensure that the block device wasn't already marked as
missing? If there's no such check, could missing_devices end up
exceeding total_devices?
Right, I'll change the device number related changes behind a
test_and_set_bit(), so that we won't double accounting the missing device.
Thanks,
Qu>
Thanks, Anand
