linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
@ 2020-03-26  5:54 Qu Wenruo
  2020-04-03  8:11 ` Dan Carpenter
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2020-03-26  5:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-btrfs

[BUG]
A completely sane converted fs will cause kernel warning at balance
time:

[ 1557.188633] BTRFS info (device sda7): relocating block group 8162107392 flags data
[ 1563.358078] BTRFS info (device sda7): found 11722 extents
[ 1563.358277] BTRFS info (device sda7): leaf 7989321728 gen 95 total ptrs 213 free space 3458 owner 2
[ 1563.358280] 	item 0 key (7984947200 169 0) itemoff 16250 itemsize 33
[ 1563.358281] 		extent refs 1 gen 90 flags 2
[ 1563.358282] 		ref#0: tree block backref root 4
[ 1563.358285] 	item 1 key (7985602560 169 0) itemoff 16217 itemsize 33
[ 1563.358286] 		extent refs 1 gen 93 flags 258
[ 1563.358287] 		ref#0: shared block backref parent 7985602560
[ 1563.358288] 			(parent 7985602560 is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize 16384)
[ 1563.358290] 	item 2 key (7985635328 169 0) itemoff 16184 itemsize 33
...
[ 1563.358995] BTRFS error (device sda7): eb 7989321728 invalid extent inline ref type 182
[ 1563.358996] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 1563.359005] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 2930 at 0xffffffff9f231766

Then with transaction abort, and obviously failed to balance the fs.

[CAUSE]
That mentioned inline ref type 182 is completely sane, it's
BTRFS_SHARED_BLOCK_REF_KEY, it's some extra check making kernel to
believe it's invalid.

Commit 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref
type") introduced extra checks for backref type.

One of the requirement is, parent bytenr must be aligned to node size,
which is not correct, especially for converted fs.

As converted fs could created metadata chunk at bytenr aligned to sector
size, but not aligned to node size.
Then new metadata extents in that chunk would only be aligned to sector
size, with only offset inside the chunk is aligned to node size.

One tree block can start at any bytenr aligned to sector size. Node size
should never be an alignment requirement.
Thus such bad check is causing above bug.

[FIX]
Change the alignment requirement from node size alignment to sector size
alignment.

Also, to make our lives a little easier, also output @iref when
btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type() failed, so we can locate the item
easier.

Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205475
Fixes: 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref type")
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
Changelog:
v2:
- Update commit message
  Remove the mention for mixed fs, as it's not the cause.
  Add more explanation on how converted fs is causing the problem.

- Fix print-tree comment and alignment check
---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 13 +++++++------
 fs/btrfs/print-tree.c  | 18 ++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 54a64d1e18c6..6b9e7e050995 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -401,10 +401,10 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 				/*
 				 * Every shared one has parent tree
 				 * block, which must be aligned to
-				 * nodesize.
+				 * sector size.
 				 */
 				if (offset &&
-				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
+				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
 					return type;
 			}
 		} else if (is_data == BTRFS_REF_TYPE_DATA) {
@@ -415,10 +415,10 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 				/*
 				 * Every shared one has parent tree
 				 * block, which must be aligned to
-				 * nodesize.
+				 * sector size.
 				 */
 				if (offset &&
-				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
+				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
 					return type;
 			}
 		} else {
@@ -428,8 +428,9 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 	}
 
 	btrfs_print_leaf((struct extent_buffer *)eb);
-	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info, "eb %llu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
-		  eb->start, type);
+	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info,
+		  "eb %llu iref 0x%lu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
+		  eb->start, (unsigned long)iref, type);
 	WARN_ON(1);
 
 	return BTRFS_REF_TYPE_INVALID;
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
index 61f44e78e3c9..aa1636abde90 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
@@ -93,11 +93,12 @@ static void print_extent_item(struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot, int type)
 			pr_cont("shared block backref parent %llu\n", offset);
 			/*
 			 * offset is supposed to be a tree block which
-			 * must be aligned to nodesize.
+			 * must be aligned to sector size.
 			 */
-			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
-				pr_info("\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize %llu)\n",
-					offset, (unsigned long long)eb->fs_info->nodesize);
+			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
+				pr_info(
+		"\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to sectorsize %u)\n",
+					offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize);
 			break;
 		case BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_REF_KEY:
 			dref = (struct btrfs_extent_data_ref *)(&iref->offset);
@@ -109,11 +110,12 @@ static void print_extent_item(struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot, int type)
 			       offset, btrfs_shared_data_ref_count(eb, sref));
 			/*
 			 * offset is supposed to be a tree block which
-			 * must be aligned to nodesize.
+			 * must be aligned to sector size.
 			 */
-			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
-				pr_info("\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize %llu)\n",
-				     offset, (unsigned long long)eb->fs_info->nodesize);
+			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
+				pr_info(
+		"\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to sectorsize %u)\n",
+				     offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize);
 			break;
 		default:
 			pr_cont("(extent %llu has INVALID ref type %d)\n",
-- 
2.26.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
  2020-03-26  5:54 [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr Qu Wenruo
@ 2020-04-03  8:11 ` Dan Carpenter
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-03  8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kbuild, Qu Wenruo; +Cc: kbuild-all, linux-btrfs

Hi Qu,

url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Qu-Wenruo/btrfs-Only-require-sector-size-alignment-for-parent-eb-bytenr/20200327-034045
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

New smatch warnings:
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1178 btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type() warn: '0x' prefix is confusing together with '%lu' specifier
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1178 btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type() warn: argument 4 to %lu specifier is cast from pointer

Old smatch warnings:
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6343 update_block_group() warn: inconsistent indenting
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7620 find_free_extent() warn: inconsistent indenting

# https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/8a07080e7e5051c75e67e30bf635fc230b2ab720
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
git remote update linux-review
git checkout 8a07080e7e5051c75e67e30bf635fc230b2ab720
vim +1178 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c

64ecdb647ddb83 Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1166  				 */
64ecdb647ddb83 Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1167  				if (offset &&
8a07080e7e5051 Qu Wenruo 2020-03-26  1168  				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
64ecdb647ddb83 Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1169  					return type;
64ecdb647ddb83 Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1170  			}
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1171  		} else {
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1172  			ASSERT(is_data == BTRFS_REF_TYPE_ANY);
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1173  			return type;
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1174  		}
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1175  	}
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1176  
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1177  	btrfs_print_leaf((struct extent_buffer *)eb);
8a07080e7e5051 Qu Wenruo 2020-03-26 @1178  	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info,
8a07080e7e5051 Qu Wenruo 2020-03-26  1179  		  "eb %llu iref 0x%lu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
                                                                        ^^^^^

8a07080e7e5051 Qu Wenruo 2020-03-26  1180  		  eb->start, (unsigned long)iref, type);
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
0x indicates hex, but this is decimal.  But use %p for pointers so that
the can be hidden to people without enough privilege.  #kernelHardenning

167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1181  	WARN_ON(1);
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1182  
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1183  	return BTRFS_REF_TYPE_INVALID;
167ce953ca55bd Liu Bo    2017-08-18  1184  }

---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
  2020-08-26  9:26 Qu Wenruo
  2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
  2020-09-03 11:44 ` David Sterba
@ 2020-09-03 11:53 ` David Sterba
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2020-09-03 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Qu Wenruo; +Cc: linux-btrfs

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:26:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> @@ -429,8 +429,9 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
>  	}
>  
>  	btrfs_print_leaf((struct extent_buffer *)eb);
> -	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info, "eb %llu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
> -		  eb->start, type);
> +	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info,
> +		  "eb %llu iref 0x%lu invalid extent inline ref type %d",

So I replied to the previous v2 post by accident but now I see that the
0x%lu problem was reported back then and still present in this v2.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
  2020-08-26  9:26 Qu Wenruo
  2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
@ 2020-09-03 11:44 ` David Sterba
  2020-09-03 11:53 ` David Sterba
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2020-09-03 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Qu Wenruo; +Cc: linux-btrfs

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:26:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> @@ -429,8 +429,9 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
>  	}
>  
>  	btrfs_print_leaf((struct extent_buffer *)eb);
> -	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info, "eb %llu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
> -		  eb->start, type);
> +	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info,
> +		  "eb %llu iref 0x%lu invalid extent inline ref type %d",

0x needs %lx, fixed and added to misc-next, thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
  2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
@ 2020-08-26 22:51   ` Qu Wenruo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2020-08-26 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Josef Bacik, Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2270 bytes --]



On 2020/8/26 下午10:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 8/26/20 5:26 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> [BUG]
>> A completely sane converted fs will cause kernel warning at balance
>> time:
>>
>> [ 1557.188633] BTRFS info (device sda7): relocating block group
>> 8162107392 flags data
>> [ 1563.358078] BTRFS info (device sda7): found 11722 extents
>> [ 1563.358277] BTRFS info (device sda7): leaf 7989321728 gen 95 total
>> ptrs 213 free space 3458 owner 2
>> [ 1563.358280]     item 0 key (7984947200 169 0) itemoff 16250
>> itemsize 33
>> [ 1563.358281]         extent refs 1 gen 90 flags 2
>> [ 1563.358282]         ref#0: tree block backref root 4
>> [ 1563.358285]     item 1 key (7985602560 169 0) itemoff 16217
>> itemsize 33
>> [ 1563.358286]         extent refs 1 gen 93 flags 258
>> [ 1563.358287]         ref#0: shared block backref parent 7985602560
>> [ 1563.358288]             (parent 7985602560 is NOT ALIGNED to
>> nodesize 16384)
>> [ 1563.358290]     item 2 key (7985635328 169 0) itemoff 16184
>> itemsize 33
>> ...
>> [ 1563.358995] BTRFS error (device sda7): eb 7989321728 invalid extent
>> inline ref type 182
>> [ 1563.358996] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 1563.359005] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 2930 at 0xffffffff9f231766
>>
>> Then with transaction abort, and obviously failed to balance the fs.
>>
>> [CAUSE]
>> That mentioned inline ref type 182 is completely sane, it's
>> BTRFS_SHARED_BLOCK_REF_KEY, it's some extra check making kernel to
>> believe it's invalid.
>>
>> Commit 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref
>> type") introduced extra checks for backref type.
>>
>> One of the requirement is, parent bytenr must be aligned to node size,
>> which is not correct.
>>
>> One example is like this:
>>
>> 0    1G  1G+4K        2G 2G+4K
>>     |   |///////////////////|//|  <- A chunk starts at 1G+4K
>>              |   |    <- A tree block get reserved at bytenr 1G+4K
>>
> 
> This only happens with convert right?  Can we just fix convert to not do
> this? Thanks,

Yes, but the damage is already done, thus we still need to handle them.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> Josef


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
  2020-08-26  9:26 Qu Wenruo
@ 2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
  2020-08-26 22:51   ` Qu Wenruo
  2020-09-03 11:44 ` David Sterba
  2020-09-03 11:53 ` David Sterba
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Josef Bacik @ 2020-08-26 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs

On 8/26/20 5:26 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> A completely sane converted fs will cause kernel warning at balance
> time:
> 
> [ 1557.188633] BTRFS info (device sda7): relocating block group 8162107392 flags data
> [ 1563.358078] BTRFS info (device sda7): found 11722 extents
> [ 1563.358277] BTRFS info (device sda7): leaf 7989321728 gen 95 total ptrs 213 free space 3458 owner 2
> [ 1563.358280] 	item 0 key (7984947200 169 0) itemoff 16250 itemsize 33
> [ 1563.358281] 		extent refs 1 gen 90 flags 2
> [ 1563.358282] 		ref#0: tree block backref root 4
> [ 1563.358285] 	item 1 key (7985602560 169 0) itemoff 16217 itemsize 33
> [ 1563.358286] 		extent refs 1 gen 93 flags 258
> [ 1563.358287] 		ref#0: shared block backref parent 7985602560
> [ 1563.358288] 			(parent 7985602560 is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize 16384)
> [ 1563.358290] 	item 2 key (7985635328 169 0) itemoff 16184 itemsize 33
> ...
> [ 1563.358995] BTRFS error (device sda7): eb 7989321728 invalid extent inline ref type 182
> [ 1563.358996] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 1563.359005] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 2930 at 0xffffffff9f231766
> 
> Then with transaction abort, and obviously failed to balance the fs.
> 
> [CAUSE]
> That mentioned inline ref type 182 is completely sane, it's
> BTRFS_SHARED_BLOCK_REF_KEY, it's some extra check making kernel to
> believe it's invalid.
> 
> Commit 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref
> type") introduced extra checks for backref type.
> 
> One of the requirement is, parent bytenr must be aligned to node size,
> which is not correct.
> 
> One example is like this:
> 
> 0	1G  1G+4K		2G 2G+4K
> 	|   |///////////////////|//|  <- A chunk starts at 1G+4K
>              |   |	<- A tree block get reserved at bytenr 1G+4K
> 

This only happens with convert right?  Can we just fix convert to not do this? 
Thanks,

Josef

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr
@ 2020-08-26  9:26 Qu Wenruo
  2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2020-08-26  9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-btrfs

[BUG]
A completely sane converted fs will cause kernel warning at balance
time:

[ 1557.188633] BTRFS info (device sda7): relocating block group 8162107392 flags data
[ 1563.358078] BTRFS info (device sda7): found 11722 extents
[ 1563.358277] BTRFS info (device sda7): leaf 7989321728 gen 95 total ptrs 213 free space 3458 owner 2
[ 1563.358280] 	item 0 key (7984947200 169 0) itemoff 16250 itemsize 33
[ 1563.358281] 		extent refs 1 gen 90 flags 2
[ 1563.358282] 		ref#0: tree block backref root 4
[ 1563.358285] 	item 1 key (7985602560 169 0) itemoff 16217 itemsize 33
[ 1563.358286] 		extent refs 1 gen 93 flags 258
[ 1563.358287] 		ref#0: shared block backref parent 7985602560
[ 1563.358288] 			(parent 7985602560 is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize 16384)
[ 1563.358290] 	item 2 key (7985635328 169 0) itemoff 16184 itemsize 33
...
[ 1563.358995] BTRFS error (device sda7): eb 7989321728 invalid extent inline ref type 182
[ 1563.358996] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 1563.359005] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 2930 at 0xffffffff9f231766

Then with transaction abort, and obviously failed to balance the fs.

[CAUSE]
That mentioned inline ref type 182 is completely sane, it's
BTRFS_SHARED_BLOCK_REF_KEY, it's some extra check making kernel to
believe it's invalid.

Commit 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref
type") introduced extra checks for backref type.

One of the requirement is, parent bytenr must be aligned to node size,
which is not correct.

One example is like this:

0	1G  1G+4K		2G 2G+4K
	|   |///////////////////|//|  <- A chunk starts at 1G+4K
            |   |	<- A tree block get reserved at bytenr 1G+4K

Then we have a valid tree block at bytenr 1G+4K, but not aligned to
nodesize (16K).

Such chunk is not ideal, but current kernel can handle it pretty well.
We may warn about such tree block in the future, but not reject them.

[FIX]
Change the alignment requirement from node size alignment to sector size
alignment.

Also, to make our lives a little easier, also output @iref when
btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type() failed, so we can locate the item
easier.

Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205475
Fixes: 64ecdb647ddb ("Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref type")
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
Changelog:
v2:
- Make the commit message more clear on how such case is caused
  The only reason is converted fs, which could create chunk starts at
  sector aligned only bytenr.
---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 13 +++++++------
 fs/btrfs/print-tree.c  | 12 +++++++-----
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 73973e6e8ba6..068755468472 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -402,10 +402,10 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 				/*
 				 * Every shared one has parent tree
 				 * block, which must be aligned to
-				 * nodesize.
+				 * sector size.
 				 */
 				if (offset &&
-				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
+				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
 					return type;
 			}
 		} else if (is_data == BTRFS_REF_TYPE_DATA) {
@@ -416,10 +416,10 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 				/*
 				 * Every shared one has parent tree
 				 * block, which must be aligned to
-				 * nodesize.
+				 * sector size.
 				 */
 				if (offset &&
-				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
+				    IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
 					return type;
 			}
 		} else {
@@ -429,8 +429,9 @@ int btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
 	}
 
 	btrfs_print_leaf((struct extent_buffer *)eb);
-	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info, "eb %llu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
-		  eb->start, type);
+	btrfs_err(eb->fs_info,
+		  "eb %llu iref 0x%lu invalid extent inline ref type %d",
+		  eb->start, (unsigned long)iref, type);
 	WARN_ON(1);
 
 	return BTRFS_REF_TYPE_INVALID;
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
index 61f44e78e3c9..68138e14f039 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/print-tree.c
@@ -95,9 +95,10 @@ static void print_extent_item(struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot, int type)
 			 * offset is supposed to be a tree block which
 			 * must be aligned to nodesize.
 			 */
-			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
-				pr_info("\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize %llu)\n",
-					offset, (unsigned long long)eb->fs_info->nodesize);
+			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize))
+				pr_info(
+		"\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to sectorsize %u)\n",
+					offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize);
 			break;
 		case BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_REF_KEY:
 			dref = (struct btrfs_extent_data_ref *)(&iref->offset);
@@ -112,8 +113,9 @@ static void print_extent_item(struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot, int type)
 			 * must be aligned to nodesize.
 			 */
 			if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, eb->fs_info->nodesize))
-				pr_info("\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to nodesize %llu)\n",
-				     offset, (unsigned long long)eb->fs_info->nodesize);
+				pr_info(
+		"\t\t\t(parent %llu is NOT ALIGNED to sectorsize %u)\n",
+				     offset, eb->fs_info->sectorsize);
 			break;
 		default:
 			pr_cont("(extent %llu has INVALID ref type %d)\n",
-- 
2.28.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-03 11:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-03-26  5:54 [PATCH v2] btrfs: Only require sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr Qu Wenruo
2020-04-03  8:11 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-08-26  9:26 Qu Wenruo
2020-08-26 14:18 ` Josef Bacik
2020-08-26 22:51   ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-03 11:44 ` David Sterba
2020-09-03 11:53 ` David Sterba

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).