On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous
> extent item, just switch into it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hi Shilong,
This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently:
btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see
/home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad)
--- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000
+++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad
2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000
@@ -1,3 +1,100 @@
QA output created by 004
*** test backref walking
-*** done
+unexpected output from
+ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal
logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
+expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file:
/home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132,
got:
+ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory
...
(Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out
/home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see
the entire diff)
Ran: btrfs/004
Failures: btrfs/004
Failed 1 of 1 tests
See comment inline below as well.
Thanks
> ---
> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++-------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> u64 logical,
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - while (1) {
> - u32 nritems;
> - if (path->slots[0] == 0) {
> - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path);
> - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path);
> - if (ret != 0) {
> - if (ret > 0) {
> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within "
> - "any extent\n", logical);
> - ret = -ENOENT;
> - }
> - return ret;
> - }
> - } else {
> - path->slots[0]--;
> - }
> - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]);
> - if (nritems == 0) {
> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n",
> - logical);
> - return -ENOENT;
> - }
> - if (path->slots[0] == nritems)
> - path->slots[0]--;
> -
> - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key,
> - path->slots[0]);
> - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY ||
> - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY)
> - break;
> - }
> + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1
when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making
the test fail.
>
> if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY)
> size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize;
> --
> 1.8.4
>
> --
> 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
--
Filipe David Manana,
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
--
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
