On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 04:03:42AM +0800, Alan Huang wrote: > There is req->ec = erasure_code above. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Huang <[email protected]>
Thanks, I screwed this up when I was reducing stack usage in the allocator path - it was only busted in -next, fortunately. > --- > fs/bcachefs/alloc_foreground.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/alloc_foreground.c b/fs/bcachefs/alloc_foreground.c > index a0f92daa44cf..c17c5733526d 100644 > --- a/fs/bcachefs/alloc_foreground.c > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/alloc_foreground.c > @@ -1255,6 +1255,9 @@ int bch2_alloc_sectors_start_trans(struct btree_trans > *trans, > if (unlikely(ret)) > return ret; > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BCACHEFS_ERASURE_CODING)) > + erasure_code = false; > + > req->nr_replicas = nr_replicas; > req->target = target; > req->ec = erasure_code; > @@ -1262,9 +1265,6 @@ int bch2_alloc_sectors_start_trans(struct btree_trans > *trans, > req->flags = flags; > req->devs_have = devs_have; > > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BCACHEFS_ERASURE_CODING)) > - erasure_code = false; > - > BUG_ON(!nr_replicas || !nr_replicas_required); > retry: > req->ptrs.nr = 0; > -- > 2.48.1 >
