On 7/10/13 11:12 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf() >> function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf() >> from ctree.c. > > This has been removed by Eric's patch present in the integration > branches: > Btrfs-progs: remove cut & paste btrfs_next_leaf from restore > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg24477.html > > but now Chris has a fix in the master branch, > btrfs-restore: deal with NULL returns from read_node_slot > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=194aa4a1bd6447bb545286d0bcb0b0be8204d79f
Just noticed this. :( Is there some reason that kernelspace should not also get Chris' fix, though? > the code of updated next_leaf is not identical to btrfs_next_leaf and I > think 'restore' could be more tolerant to partially corrupted > structures, so both functions could make sense in the end. Surely kernelspace should be at least as tolerant as userspace; it it seems like Chris's BUG_ON removal patch could benefit kernelspace too, no? And then we could take one more baby step towards a cleaner, non- cut-and-pasted codebase. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
