On 17/08/2023 12:41, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> [...]
>> + pr_info("BTRFS: virtual fsid (%pU) set for SINGLE_DEV device %s (real fsid %pU)\n",
>> + disk_super->fsid, path, disk_super->metadata_uuid);
>
> I think just
>
> btrfs_info(NULL, "virtual fsid....")
>
> is fine here.
>
So just for my full understanding, do you think we shouldn't show the
real fsid here, but keep showing the virtual one, right? Or you prefer
we literally show "virtual fsid...."?
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> - * Add new device to list of registered devices
>> + * Add new device to list of registered devices, or in case of a SINGLE_DEV
>> + * device, also creates a virtual fsid to cope with same-fsid cases.
>> *
>> * Returns:
>> * device pointer which was just added or updated when successful
>> @@ -784,7 +814,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *find_fsid_reverted_metadata(
>> */
>> static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path,
>> struct btrfs_super_block *disk_super,
>> - bool *new_device_added)
>> + bool *new_device_added, bool single_dev)
>
> Same as the comment above. Generally speaking for stuff like this where we can
> derive the value local to the function we want to do that instead of growing the
> argument list. Thanks,
>
> Josef
>
OK, will do it both here and above as you suggested. Thanks for the review!
Cheers,
Guilherme
