On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 08:45 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2017年10月30日 08:19, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 07:59 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: [...] > > > These fixes will soon be replace by centralized tree-checker facilities. > > > > Is that likely to be a small enough change to be reasonably backport- > > able? > > It depends. > > Check the thread with the subject "[PATCH v3 0/5] Enhance tree block > validation checker" > > ---- > fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +- > fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 4 + > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 284 +------------------------------- > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 429 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 437 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > ---- That looks like it would be too big for stable. > Since it's centralized, most of the modification will be in > tree-checker.c, and make the impact to existing code to minimal. > > However that patchset is just the skeleton of the whole thing, name_len > related code is not moved to tree-checker yet. > > > On the other hand, the whole name_len patchset is just an enhanced > validation checker, I'm not pretty sure if such thing should be back > ported especially when it's just a whack-a-hole solution. I see. Thanks for the information. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part