At 12/06/2016 08:44 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 12/05/2016 09:08 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 12/06/2016 10:51 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from
backtrace one.
#define BUG_ON(c)
On 12/05/2016 09:08 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 12/06/2016 10:51 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from
>>> backtrace one.
>>>
>>> #define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__,
At 12/06/2016 10:51 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from backtrace one.
#define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (long)(c))
#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__,
On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from backtrace one.
>
> #define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (long)(c))
> #define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
> (long)(c))
> #define
BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from backtrace one.
#define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (long)(c))
#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
(long)(c))
#define ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
Hi Qu,
Yes, the assert for ifdef BTRFS_DIABLE_BACKTRACE is not correct. The
condition should not have a not(!).
Thanks for reporting.
On 12/05/2016 01:10 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi, Goldwyn and David,
>
> This patch seems to cause btrfs test case 023 to fail.
>
> Bisect leads me to this patch.
Hi, Goldwyn and David,
This patch seems to cause btrfs test case 023 to fail.
Bisect leads me to this patch.
$ ./btrfs check ~/quota_balance_loop_backref.raw.restored
Checking filesystem on /home/adam/quota_balance_loop_backref.raw.restored
UUID: c33c5ce3-3ad9-4320-9201-c337c04e0051
checking
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24:52AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> The values passed to BUG_ON/WARN_ON are negated(!) and printed, which
> results in printing the value zero for each bug/warning. For example:
> volumes.c:988: btrfs_alloc_chunk:
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
The values passed to BUG_ON/WARN_ON are negated(!) and printed, which
results in printing the value zero for each bug/warning. For example:
volumes.c:988: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `ret` failed, value 0
This is not useful. Instead changed to print