David Sterba wrote on 2016/04/04 13:18 +0200:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:50:06PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
After another look, why don't we use nodesize directly? Or stripesize
where applies. With max_size == 0 the test does not make sense, we ought
to know the alignment.
Yes, my first though is also to use nodesize directly, which should be
always correct.
But the problem is, the related function call stack doesn't have any
member to reach btrfs_root or btrfs_fs_info.
JFYI, there's global_info avalaible, so it's not necessary to pass
fs_info down the callstacks.
Oh, that's a good news.
Do I need to re-submit the patch to use fs_info->tree_root->nodesize to
avoid false alert?
Or wait for your refactor?
Thanks,
Qu
--
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
