On 07/06/2012 11:37 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 07:50:52PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
>> On 06/14/2012 12:07 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
>>
int set_state_private(struct extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64
private)
{
>>> [...]
+ret = radix_tree_insert(&tree->cs
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 07:50:52PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 12:07 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> >
> >> int set_state_private(struct extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64
> >> private)
> >> {
> > [...]
> >> +ret = radix_tree_insert(&tree->csum, (unsigned long)start,
> >> +
+BUG_ON(ret);
I wonder if we can patch BUG_ON() to break the build if its only
argument is "ret".
why?
Well, I'm mostly joking :). That would be a very silly change to make.
But only mostly joking. btrfs does have a real fragility problem from
all these incomplete error handling pa
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> We used to issue a checksum to an extent state of 4K range for read endio,
> but now we want to use larger range for performance optimization, so instead
> we
> create a radix tree for checksum, where an item stands for checksum of 4K
> da
On 06/14/2012 12:07 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
>
>> int set_state_private(struct extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64
>> private)
>> {
> [...]
>> +ret = radix_tree_insert(&tree->csum, (unsigned long)start,
>> + (void *)((unsigned long)private<< 1));
>
> Will this fail for 6
int set_state_private(struct extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64 private)
{
[...]
+ ret = radix_tree_insert(&tree->csum, (unsigned long)start,
+ (void *)((unsigned long)private<< 1));
Will this fail for 64bit files on 32bit hosts?
+ BUG_ON(ret
We used to issue a checksum to an extent state of 4K range for read endio,
but now we want to use larger range for performance optimization, so instead we
create a radix tree for checksum, where an item stands for checksum of 4K data.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 84 +++
