Hi Qu,
On 2018/11/5 22:42, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/11/5 下午7:33, Zhangshaokun wrote:
>> Hi Qu,
>>
>> On 2018/11/5 19:03, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018/11/5 下午6:49, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>>>> block_group_err shows the group system as a decimal value with a '0x'
>>>> prefix, which is somewhat misleading.
>>>>
>>>> Fix it to print hexadecimal, as was intended.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> BTW, did you catch it with some real world case or just by looking into
>>> the code?
>>
>> I made a mistake (0x%d) when debugged my code, so I grep the similar format
>> for the kernel code and came across this typo, a trivial patch.
>
> Ok, that's fine.
>
> Just a small tip for your further involvement in kernel, for such small
> fix, there is really no need to bother all the maintainers.
>
My apologies for the noise to all the maintainers. I shall pay more attention
on it.
> You could just use "git blame" to find who is causing the problem, in
> this case it's me unfortunately :( , and Cc that guy.
>
In fact, I really used the "git blame" and saw it from your patch. While I
use the get_maintainer.pl and Cc them directly, forgot to Cc you. I will
do what you said for the further work.
> Furthermore, you could add a "fixes:" tag.
> About these common tags, you could refer to 'Describe your changes'
> section of 'Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst'.
>
Sure, thanks for your nice guidance.
Shaokun
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shaokun
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>>>> index cab0b1f..efcf89a 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>>>> @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> type != (BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA |
>>>> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA)) {
>>>> block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>>>> -"invalid type, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect either 0x%llx, 0x%llx, 0x%llu or 0x%llx",
>>>> +"invalid type, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect either 0x%llx, 0x%llx, 0x%llx or 0x%llx",
>>>> type, hweight64(type),
>>>> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA, BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA,
>>>> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_SYSTEM,
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
