On 6/25/14, 12:14 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/24/14, 9:22 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote: >> > On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 21:17 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> >> On 6/11/14, 9:25 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote: >>>> >>> When run chunk-recover on a health btrfs(data profile raid0, with >>>> >>> plenty of data), the program has a chance to abort on the number >>>> >>> of mirrors of an extent. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> According to the kernel code, the max mirror number of an extent >>>> >>> is 3 not 2: >>>> >>> ctree.h: BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS 3 >>>> >>> chunk-recover.c : BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS 2 >>>> >>> just change BTRFS_NUM_MIRRORS to 3, and everything goes well. >>> >> >>> >> Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, then, to change the userspace >>> >> macro to be called BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS as well? >>> >> >>> >> -Eric >>> >> >> > Yes, Eric, unify the names between userspace and kernelspace is really a >> > good point. Also, I plan to move the macro into ctree.h, what do you >> > think? > It's only used in chunk-recover.c, so I don't see much point to moving it > to a new file. Sorry, I take that back. Actually - Yes, I think it does make sense, just so that userspace moves slightly closer to kernelspace. -Eric (who said long ago that he wanted to try to sync things up, but found himself daunted by the task, and failed) -- 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
