On 2019/3/26 上午1:06, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:37:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> By function, chunk item verification is more suitable to be done inside
>> tree-checker.
>>
>> So move btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to tree-checker.c and export it.
>>
>> And since it's now moved to tree-checker, also add a better comment for
>> what this function is doing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h |  3 ++
>>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c      | 94 +-------------------------------------
>>  3 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> index b8cdaf472031..4e44323ae758 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> @@ -448,6 +448,105 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info 
>> *fs_info,
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * The common chunk check which could also work on super block sys chunk 
>> array.
>> + *
>> + * Return -EUCLEAN if anything is corrupted.
> 
> Well, that's still confusing if you say EUCLEAN in the commend and use
> EIO in the code.
> 
Oh, that EIO to EUCLEAN change is in later patch (3/9).

Do I need to resend the patchset?

Thanks,
Qu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to