From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:58496 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752088AbaFYC1c (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:27:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1403662935.31177.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: fix max mirror number error for chunk-recover From: Gui Hecheng To: Eric Sandeen CC: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:22:15 +0800 In-Reply-To: <53AA313C.9010802@redhat.com> References: <1402539901-22779-1-git-send-email-guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1402539901-22779-2-git-send-email-guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <53AA313C.9010802@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 21:17 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/11/14, 9:25 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote: > > When run chunk-recover on a health btrfs(data profile raid0, with > > plenty of data), the program has a chance to abort on the number > > of mirrors of an extent. > > > > According to the kernel code, the max mirror number of an extent > > is 3 not 2: > > ctree.h: BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS 3 > > chunk-recover.c : BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS 2 > > just change BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS to 3, and everything goes well. > > Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, then, to change the userspace > macro to be called BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS as well? > > -Eric > Yes, Eric, unify the names between userspace and kernelspace is really a good point. Also, I plan to move the macro into ctree.h, what do you think? -Gui > > Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng > > --- > > chunk-recover.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/chunk-recover.c b/chunk-recover.c > > index 9b46b0b..d5a688e 100644 > > --- a/chunk-recover.c > > +++ b/chunk-recover.c > > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ > > #include "btrfsck.h" > > #include "commands.h" > > > > -#define BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS 2 > > +#define BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS 3 > > > > struct recover_control { > > int verbose; > > >