From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:55807 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752416AbaFYG5C convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:57:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1403679104.8186.9.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 14:51:44 +0800 In-Reply-To: <53AA5D46.4080203@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> <1403662935.31177.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <53AA5ABF.1030102@redhat.com> <53AA5D46.4080203@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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