Matt, a question:
in the following code path in dnode_sync.c:
....
if (dn->dn_next_nblkptr[txgoff]) {
/* this should only happen on a realloc */
ASSERT(dn->dn_allocated_txg == tx->tx_txg);
if (dn->dn_next_nblkptr[txgoff] > dnp->dn_nblkptr) {
/* zero the new blkptrs we are gaining */
bzero(dnp->dn_blkptr + dnp->dn_nblkptr,
sizeof (blkptr_t) *
(dn->dn_next_nblkptr[txgoff] - dnp->dn_nblkptr));
#ifdef ZFS_DEBUG
} else {
int i;
ASSERT(dn->dn_next_nblkptr[txgoff] < dnp->dn_nblkptr);
/* the blkptrs we are losing better be unallocated */
for (i = dn->dn_next_nblkptr[txgoff];
i < dnp->dn_nblkptr; i++)
ASSERT(BP_IS_HOLE(&dnp->dn_blkptr[i]));
#endif
....
when losing the block pointers in the dnode with HOLE_BIRTH feature enabled txg
<= current txg, should assert birth_epoch != 0 ?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/46#issuecomment-165572235
_______________________________________________
developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
