On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:16:37PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > I *think* the second one is just a typo. The chunk's num_stripes was > already initialized from the record, but it's le16. So we'll set the > item's size based on the record's native num_stripes. > @@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ static int __rebuild_chunk_items(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, > key.offset = chunk_rec->offset; > > ret = btrfs_insert_item(trans, chunk_root, &key, chunk, > - btrfs_chunk_item_size(chunk->num_stripes)); > + btrfs_chunk_item_size(chunk_rec->num_stripes)); AFAICS, this is an equivalent change, chunk gets copied from chunk_rec via create_chunk_item a few lines above. It looks more consistent with chunk_rec, though. > free(chunk); > if (ret) > return ret; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
