On 11.10.2017 04:55, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> From: Gu JinXiang <gujx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Fix bug of
> <f8f84b2dfda5> (<btrfs: index check-integrity state hash by a dev_t>).
>
> Description of this bug:
> Use MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o check_int" when run xfstest, device can not be
> mount successfully. So xfstest can not run.
You haven't described what causes the bug but rather how to reproduce it
? Describe what is the difference between using ->bdev and bdev->bd_dev.
And how using one or the other affects the integrity checks and why
those checks fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gu JinXiang <gujx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> index 9d3854839038..86d79bc4cfb3 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ static void btrfsic_dev_state_hashtable_add(
> struct btrfsic_dev_state_hashtable *h)
> {
> const unsigned int hashval =
> - (((unsigned int)((uintptr_t)ds->bdev)) &
> + (((unsigned int)((uintptr_t)ds->bdev->bd_dev)) &
> (BTRFSIC_DEV2STATE_HASHTABLE_SIZE - 1));
>
> list_add(&ds->collision_resolving_node, h->table + hashval);
>
--
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
