* [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()
@ 2017-10-30 8:10 Misono, Tomohiro
2017-10-30 8:20 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-10-30 8:39 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Misono, Tomohiro @ 2017-10-30 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
In the print_inode_item(), the argument order of sequence and flags are
reversed:
printf("... sequence %llu flags 0x%llx(%s)\n",
...
(unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
(unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
...)
So, just fix it.
Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
print-tree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/print-tree.c b/print-tree.c
index 3c585e3..8abd760 100644
--- a/print-tree.c
+++ b/print-tree.c
@@ -896,8 +896,8 @@ static void print_inode_item(struct extent_buffer *eb,
btrfs_inode_uid(eb, ii),
btrfs_inode_gid(eb, ii),
(unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_rdev(eb,ii),
- (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
(unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
+ (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
flags_str);
print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_atime(ii), "\t\tatime ", "\n");
print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_ctime(ii), "\t\tctime ", "\n");
--
2.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()
2017-10-30 8:10 [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item() Misono, Tomohiro
@ 2017-10-30 8:20 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-01-16 4:32 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-10-30 8:39 ` Qu Wenruo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2017-10-30 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Misono, Tomohiro, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]
On 2017年10月30日 16:10, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> In the print_inode_item(), the argument order of sequence and flags are
> reversed:
>
> printf("... sequence %llu flags 0x%llx(%s)\n",
> ...
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
> ...)
>
> So, just fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Thanks,
Qu
> ---
> print-tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/print-tree.c b/print-tree.c
> index 3c585e3..8abd760 100644
> --- a/print-tree.c
> +++ b/print-tree.c
> @@ -896,8 +896,8 @@ static void print_inode_item(struct extent_buffer *eb,
> btrfs_inode_uid(eb, ii),
> btrfs_inode_gid(eb, ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_rdev(eb,ii),
> - (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
> + (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> flags_str);
> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_atime(ii), "\t\tatime ", "\n");
> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_ctime(ii), "\t\tctime ", "\n");
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 504 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()
2017-10-30 8:10 [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item() Misono, Tomohiro
2017-10-30 8:20 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2017-10-30 8:39 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-10-31 3:00 ` Misono, Tomohiro
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2017-10-30 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Misono, Tomohiro, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1430 bytes --]
On 2017年10月30日 16:10, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> In the print_inode_item(), the argument order of sequence and flags are
> reversed:
>
> printf("... sequence %llu flags 0x%llx(%s)\n",
> ...
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
> ...)
>
> So, just fix it.
Not related to this patch, but considering you're going to enhance
root_item creation, it's also a good idea to print such info like
c/o/s/r time and parent/receive UUID.
More patches will never be a bad thing.
Thanks,
Qu
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> print-tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/print-tree.c b/print-tree.c
> index 3c585e3..8abd760 100644
> --- a/print-tree.c
> +++ b/print-tree.c
> @@ -896,8 +896,8 @@ static void print_inode_item(struct extent_buffer *eb,
> btrfs_inode_uid(eb, ii),
> btrfs_inode_gid(eb, ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_rdev(eb,ii),
> - (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
> + (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
> flags_str);
> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_atime(ii), "\t\tatime ", "\n");
> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_ctime(ii), "\t\tctime ", "\n");
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 520 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()
2017-10-30 8:39 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2017-10-31 3:00 ` Misono, Tomohiro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Misono, Tomohiro @ 2017-10-31 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs
On 2017/10/30 17:39, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年10月30日 16:10, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>> In the print_inode_item(), the argument order of sequence and flags are
>> reversed:
>>
>> printf("... sequence %llu flags 0x%llx(%s)\n",
>> ...
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
>> ...)
>>
>> So, just fix it.
>
> Not related to this patch, but considering you're going to enhance
> root_item creation, it's also a good idea to print such info like
> c/o/s/r time and parent/receive UUID.
>
> More patches will never be a bad thing.
Actually parent/received UUID is printed if it exists but c/o/s/r time is not
(for ROOT_ITEM). So, I will send a patch.
Thanks,
Tomohiro
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()
2017-10-30 8:20 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-01-16 4:32 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-01-16 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Sterba; +Cc: Misono, Tomohiro, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]
Hi David,
Would you please queue this patch to devel branch?
This is a small enough, but quite important fix when handling dump tree
output.
Thanks,
Qu
On 2017年10月30日 16:20, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年10月30日 16:10, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>> In the print_inode_item(), the argument order of sequence and flags are
>> reversed:
>>
>> printf("... sequence %llu flags 0x%llx(%s)\n",
>> ...
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
>> ...)
>>
>> So, just fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>> ---
>> print-tree.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/print-tree.c b/print-tree.c
>> index 3c585e3..8abd760 100644
>> --- a/print-tree.c
>> +++ b/print-tree.c
>> @@ -896,8 +896,8 @@ static void print_inode_item(struct extent_buffer *eb,
>> btrfs_inode_uid(eb, ii),
>> btrfs_inode_gid(eb, ii),
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_rdev(eb,ii),
>> - (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
>> (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_sequence(eb, ii),
>> + (unsigned long long)btrfs_inode_flags(eb,ii),
>> flags_str);
>> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_atime(ii), "\t\tatime ", "\n");
>> print_timespec(eb, btrfs_inode_ctime(ii), "\t\tctime ", "\n");
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 504 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-16 4:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-30 8:10 [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item() Misono, Tomohiro
2017-10-30 8:20 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-01-16 4:32 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-10-30 8:39 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-10-31 3:00 ` Misono, Tomohiro
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.