From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47321 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752483AbcDEIrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 04:47:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:43:36 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck: Fix a false metadata extent warning Message-ID: <20160405084336.GF3412@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <1459390774-12424-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160331163006.GE6230@twin.jikos.cz> <56FDC0A2.1030909@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160401084418.GI6230@suse.cz> <56FE363E.5090202@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160404111852.GG9918@twin.jikos.cz> <570314BF.209@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <570314BF.209@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 09:28:31AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > David Sterba wrote on 2016/04/04 13:18 +0200: > > 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. > > > > JFYI, there's global_info avalaible, so it's not necessary to pass > > fs_info down the callstacks. > > > > > Oh, that's a good news. > > Do I need to re-submit the patch to use fs_info->tree_root->nodesize to > avoid false alert? > Or wait for your refactor? No need to resend, the refactored code is now in devel.