On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 09:28:31AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > David Sterba wrote on 2016/04/04 13:18 +0200: > > 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. > > > > JFYI, there's global_info avalaible, so it's not necessary to pass > > fs_info down the callstacks. > > > > > Oh, that's a good news. > > Do I need to re-submit the patch to use fs_info->tree_root->nodesize to > avoid false alert? > Or wait for your refactor? No need to resend, the refactored code is now in devel. -- 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
