The dev_replace_state defines are miss matched between the
BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_* and BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_* [1].

[1]
-----------------------------
btrfs.h:#define BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_FINISHED          2
btrfs.h:#define BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_CANCELED          3
btrfs.h:#define BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_SUSPENDED         4

btrfs_tree.h:#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_SUSPENDED     2
btrfs_tree.h:#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_FINISHED      3
btrfs_tree.h:#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_CANCELED      4
-----------------------------

The BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_* series is unused in both btrfs.ko and btrfs-progs, the on-disk also follows BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_* (we set dev_replace->replace_state using the
BTRFS_IOCTL_DEV_REPLACE_STATE_* defines and write to the on-disk).

 359         btrfs_set_dev_replace_replace_state(eb, ptr,
 360                 dev_replace->replace_state);

IMO it should be ok to delete the BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_*
altogether? But how about the userland progs other than btrfs-progs?
If not at least fix the miss match as in [2], any comments?

[2]
--------------------------------------
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h b/include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h
index aff1356c2bb8..9ffa7534cadf 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h
@@ -805,9 +805,9 @@ struct btrfs_dev_stats_item {
 #define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_CONT_READING_FROM_SRCDEV_MODE_AVOID     1
 #define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_NEVER_STARTED     0
 #define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_STARTED           1
-#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_SUSPENDED         2
-#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_FINISHED          3
-#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_CANCELED          4
+#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_FINISHED          2
+#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_CANCELED          3
+#define BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_ITEM_STATE_SUSPENDED         4

 struct btrfs_dev_replace_item {
        /*
--------------------------------------


Thanks, Anand

Reply via email to