Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: fix max mirror number error for chunk-recover

[Gui Hecheng <guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 00:25 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/25/14, 12:14 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 6/24/14, 9:22 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> >> > 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?
> > It's only used in chunk-recover.c, so I don't see much point to moving it
> > to a new file.
> 
> Sorry, I take that back.  Actually -
> 
> Yes, I think it does make sense, just so that userspace moves slightly closer to
> kernelspace.
> 
> -Eric (who said long ago that he wanted to try to sync things up, but
> found himself daunted by the task, and failed)

Aha，it's really a huge work for one person to do the sync things.
But Rome was not built in one day by one guy. We have a long way to go
and let's take one more step now :)

-Gui