Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add extent-tree-v2 support to dump-super

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 03:43:51PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> On 10/9/22 07:13, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > On 2022/10/8 17:02, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
> >> ---
> >>   kernel-shared/print-tree.c | 3 +++
> >>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel-shared/print-tree.c b/kernel-shared/print-tree.c
> >> index 5c3d14298b58..6b5fd37ab2bc 100644
> >> --- a/kernel-shared/print-tree.c
> >> +++ b/kernel-shared/print-tree.c
> >> @@ -1689,6 +1689,9 @@ static struct readable_flag_entry 
> >> incompat_flags_array[] = {
> >>       DEF_INCOMPAT_FLAG_ENTRY(METADATA_UUID),
> >>       DEF_INCOMPAT_FLAG_ENTRY(RAID1C34),
> >>       DEF_INCOMPAT_FLAG_ENTRY(ZONED),
> >> +#if EXPERIMENTAL
> >> +    DEF_INCOMPAT_FLAG_ENTRY(EXTENT_TREE_V2),
> >> +#endif
> > 
> > That's in fact one solution I want to go.
> > 
> > But later I found that, we can enhance __print_readable_flag() to
> > iterate the incompat_flags_array[] with extra check on @supported_flags,
> > so we can skip the EXPERIMENTAL macro inside the array.
> > 
> > By that, we can reduce the number of EXPERIMENTAL macros, which I
> > believe is already causing burdens for testing.
> 
> Yeah, possible. However, it is a cleanup; I wouldn't mix that in the bug 
> fix, here.

I'll apply your patch as it's a hotfix, what Qu suggests can be done as
consolidation later, though I agree that the number of EXPERIMENTAL
ifdefs should be kept reasonable.