Re: [PATCH] btrfs: print-tree: print header owner as signed

On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 11:21:43AM +0800, sun k wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 8:08 AM David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 08:00:06PM +0800, sun k wrote:
> > > Looks good.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Sun YangKai <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > BTW, this reminds me the print-tree result of dir items that points to a
> > > subvol, which currently looks like this:
> > >
> > > item 4 key (256 DIR_ITEM 224155391) itemoff 15967 itemsize 48
> > >                 location key (43123 ROOT_ITEM 18446744073709551615) type DIR
> > >                 transid 896627 data_len 0 name_len 18
> > >                 name: home.20260621T2000
> > >
> > > And I wonder if we can also print the location key's offset field as s64
> > > to make it easier to read.
> >
> > It should be consistent for the ROOT_ITEM and references and we can
> > actually print the name of the tree, as is done in dump-tree output.
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I'm not sure if I follow you here. The offset field of a dir item
> which points to a subvol is
> a little special. Its offset field will always be `0` for subvolume or
> `-1` for snapshot instead
> of other values. While in root tree, the offset field will always be
> `0` for subvol and `generation`
> for snapshot. So take this as an example, when location key is (43123
> ROOT_ITEM -1) in dir item,
> there's no such an item in root tree, but something like (43123
> ROOT_ITEM 8750971) instead.
> 8750971 is the generation when the snapshot is created. So I'm not
> sure what is `the name of the tree`.

You're right, in this case it does not make sense, I though the huge
number was internl tree number but it's just -1.