On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:02:20AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > On 2019/3/26 上午1:06, David Sterba wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:37:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> By function, chunk item verification is more suitable to be done inside > >> tree-checker. > >> > >> So move btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to tree-checker.c and export it. > >> > >> And since it's now moved to tree-checker, also add a better comment for > >> what this function is doing. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com> > >> --- > >> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h | 3 ++ > >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 94 +------------------------------------- > >> 3 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > >> index b8cdaf472031..4e44323ae758 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > >> @@ -448,6 +448,105 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct > >> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +/* > >> + * The common chunk check which could also work on super block sys chunk > >> array. > >> + * > >> + * Return -EUCLEAN if anything is corrupted. > > > > Well, that's still confusing if you say EUCLEAN in the commend and use > > EIO in the code. > > > Oh, that EIO to EUCLEAN change is in later patch (3/9).
Yes, but this patch when viewed on itself is confusing. The EIO->EUCLEAN in the comment belongs to 3/9 too. > Do I need to resend the patchset? No, such small fixups I do myself but I need to point that out so we reach a common understanding and what's expected.
