Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck: Fix a false metadata extent warning

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

On 04/01/2016 07:39 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:50:06PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> After another look, why don't we use nodesize directly? Or stripesize
>>> where applies. With max_size == 0 the test does not make sense, we ought
>>> to know the alignment.
>>>
>> Yes, my first though is also to use nodesize directly, which should be
>> always correct.
>>
>> But the problem is, the related function call stack doesn't have any
>> member to reach btrfs_root or btrfs_fs_info.
>>
>> In the very beginning version of such crossing stripe check, I used to
>> add a btrfs_root/btrfs_fs_info parameter to the function.
>>
>> But the code change are too many, so I use 'max_size'.
>>
>> I can try to re-do such modification, but IIRC it didn't cause a good
>> result.
>
> Yes it would require refactoring, which would be good on itself, because
> add_extent_rec takes 12(!) parameters. Some of its callers would need to
> be updated, but it seems doable.

I'll try to refactor.
I though current extent-tree rework would change all these mess, but 
considering the case of btrfs-convert, I'd better refactor current code 
other than waiting other reviewers to appear.

Thanks,
Qu

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>