On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Su Yue <suy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 11:33 AM, james harvey wrote:
>> Using btrfs-progs v4.16:
>>
>> No extent found at range [10955980800,10955984896)
>>
>> But, this extent exists. btrfs-debug-tree shows:
> Make sense. IMP the commit message is too long to read.
> Code wise is almost fine. Some nitpicks are below.
Thanks for response. I'll try to work on that.
>> + if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0])) {
>> + ret = btrfs_next_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path);
>> + if (ret != 0) {
>> + ret = -1;
>
> btrfs_next_leaf() may return -EIO, so keep the negative return code is
> prefered.
> btrfs_next_leaf may return > 0, here I'd like to set ret=-ENOENT.
> You can refer callers of btrfs_next_leaf() how to handle the return codes.
Fixed in v2.
>> else
>> - ret = btrfs_next_item(fs_info->extent_root, path);
>> + ret =
> Nit:
> Misclick here?
Missed semicolon being 81st character, fixed in v2.
--
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
