On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:50:06PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > After another look, why don't we use nodesize directly? Or stripesize > > where applies. With max_size == 0 the test does not make sense, we ought > > to know the alignment. > > > Yes, my first though is also to use nodesize directly, which should be > always correct. > > But the problem is, the related function call stack doesn't have any > member to reach btrfs_root or btrfs_fs_info. > > In the very beginning version of such crossing stripe check, I used to > add a btrfs_root/btrfs_fs_info parameter to the function. > > But the code change are too many, so I use 'max_size'. > > I can try to re-do such modification, but IIRC it didn't cause a good > result. Yes it would require refactoring, which would be good on itself, because add_extent_rec takes 12(!) parameters. Some of its callers would need to be updated, but it seems doable. -- 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
