Hi Filipe,
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous
>> extent item, just switch into it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> Hi Shilong,
>
> This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently:
>
> btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see
> /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad)
> --- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000
> +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad
> 2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000
> @@ -1,3 +1,100 @@
> QA output created by 004
> *** test backref walking
> -*** done
> +unexpected output from
> + /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal
> logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
> +expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file:
> /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132,
> got:
> +ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out
> /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see
> the entire diff)
> Ran: btrfs/004
> Failures: btrfs/004
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
> See comment inline below as well.
I could not reproduce this problem in my virtual box, how did you
trigger the problem(for a loop, options etc?)
Also, the strange thing is that this patch did not change the logic before,
the function btrfs_previous_extent_item() had the same behavior as josef's
previous codes did.
>
> Thanks
>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++-------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info
>> *fs_info, u64 logical,
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - while (1) {
>> - u32 nritems;
>> - if (path->slots[0] == 0) {
>> - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path);
>> - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path);
>> - if (ret != 0) {
>> - if (ret > 0) {
>> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within
>> "
>> - "any extent\n", logical);
>> - ret = -ENOENT;
>> - }
>> - return ret;
>> - }
>> - } else {
>> - path->slots[0]--;
>> - }
>> - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]);
>> - if (nritems == 0) {
>> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n",
>> - logical);
>> - return -ENOENT;
>> - }
>> - if (path->slots[0] == nritems)
>> - path->slots[0]--;
>> -
>> - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key,
>> - path->slots[0]);
>> - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY ||
>> - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY)
>> - break;
>> - }
>> + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>
> This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1
> when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making
> the test fail.
Yeah, Filipe, thanks for pointing this out.^_^
Thanks,
Wang
>
>>
>> if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY)
>> size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize;
>> --
>> 1.8.4
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
> --
> Filipe David Manana,
>
> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
