On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:32PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 9.10.2017 04:51, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Enhance the output to print:
> > 1) Reason
> > 2) Bad value
> > If reason can't explain enough
> > 3) Good value (range)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > index b4ced8d3ce2a..7bba195ecc8b 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > @@ -233,8 +233,9 @@ int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> > eb = btrfs_root_node(check_root);
> > /* if leaf is the root, then it's fine */
> > if (leaf != eb) {
> > - CORRUPT("non-root leaf's nritems is 0",
> > - leaf, check_root, 0);
> > + generic_err(check_root, leaf, 0,
> > + "invalid nritems, have %u shouldn't be 0 for non-root leaf",
> > + nritems);
>
> I'm a bit confused by what this error messages wants to convey. Even
> reading the previous version with CORRUPT() it still didn't make sense.
> So what we want to say here is we shouldn't have empty leaf nodes. So
> Something along the line of "Unexpected empty leaf".
>
> Why would the (leaf != eb) check not trigger, given that we call
> btrfs_check_leaf when we now that the item is a leaf (level is 0 )?
I've merged the patches, with more adjusmtents to the wording, so any
updates please send as separate patches.
>
>
> > free_extent_buffer(eb);
> > return -EUCLEAN;
> > }
> > @@ -265,7 +266,11 @@ int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> >
> > /* Make sure the keys are in the right order */
> > if (btrfs_comp_cpu_keys(&prev_key, &key) >= 0) {
> > - CORRUPT("bad key order", leaf, root, slot);
> > + generic_err(root, leaf, slot,
> > + "bad key order, prev key (%llu %u %llu) current key (%llu %u %llu)",
> > + prev_key.objectid, prev_key.type,
> > + prev_key.offset, key.objectid, key.type,
> > + key.offset);
> > return -EUCLEAN;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -280,7 +285,10 @@ int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> > item_end_expected = btrfs_item_offset_nr(leaf,
> > slot - 1);
> > if (btrfs_item_end_nr(leaf, slot) != item_end_expected) {
> > - CORRUPT("slot offset bad", leaf, root, slot);
> > + generic_err(root, leaf, slot,
> > + "discontinious item end, have %u expect %u",
>
> s/discontinious/unexpected ?
I've changed that to 'unexpected item end, ...'
--
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
