From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:7401 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718AbcDEB2k (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:28:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck: Fix a false metadata extent warning To: , 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> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <570314BF.209@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:28:31 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160404111852.GG9918@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Thanks, Qu