From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21] implement generic xfs_btree_rshift
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:08:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080730060808.GP13395@disturbed> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080729193125.GP19104@lst.de>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:31:25PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Make the btree right shift code generic. Based on a patch from David Chinner
> with lots of changes to follow the original btree implementations more
> closely. While this loses some of the generic helper routines for
> inserting/moving/removing records it also solves some of the one off
> bugs in the original code and makes it easier to verify.
Looks good. A few comments below.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c 2008-07-27 17:40:52.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c 2008-07-28 16:13:33.000000000 +0200
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> #include "xfs_attr_sf.h"
> #include "xfs_dinode.h"
> #include "xfs_inode.h"
> +#include "xfs_inode_item.h"
> #include "xfs_btree.h"
> #include "xfs_btree_trace.h"
> #include "xfs_ialloc.h"
> @@ -952,6 +953,123 @@ xfs_btree_read_buf_block(
> return xfs_btree_check_block(cur, *block, level, *bpp);
> }
>
> +STATIC void
> +xfs_btree_move_ptrs(
> + struct xfs_btree_cur *cur,
> + union xfs_btree_ptr *base,
> + int from,
> + int to,
> + int numptrs)
> +{
> + ASSERT(from >= 0 && from <= 1000);
> + ASSERT(to >= 0 && to <= 1000);
> + ASSERT(numptrs >= 0);
Those numbers are not safe. I plucked them out of thin air to verify
validity on 4k block size filesystem which had (IIRC) a max of about
500 ptrs to a block. It was throwaway debug code to find a problem.
Larger block sizes can well exceed 1000. So realistically, the only
valid assert there is this one:
ASSERT(numptrs >= 0);
> +/*
> + * Log block pointer fields from a btree block (nonleaf).
> + */
> +STATIC void
> +xfs_btree_log_ptrs(
> + struct xfs_btree_cur *cur, /* btree cursor */
> + struct xfs_buf *bp, /* buffer containing btree block */
> + int pfirst, /* index of first pointer to log */
> + int plast) /* index of last pointer to log */
I'd call these first/last (being indexes), and these:
> +{
> +
> + XFS_BTREE_TRACE_CURSOR(cur, XBT_ENTRY);
> + XFS_BTREE_TRACE_ARGBII(cur, bp, pfirst, plast);
> +
> + if (bp) {
> + struct xfs_btree_block *block = XFS_BUF_TO_BLOCK(bp);
> + union xfs_btree_ptr *pp;
> + int first; /* first byte offset logged */
> + int last; /* last byte offset logged */
start/end because they are byte range identifiers.
> +
> + pp = cur->bc_ops->ptr_addr(cur, 1, block);
> +
> + if (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_LONG_PTRS) {
> + __be64 *lpp = &pp->l;
> +
> + first = (int)((xfs_caddr_t)&lpp[pfirst - 1] -
> + (xfs_caddr_t)block);
> + last = (int)(((xfs_caddr_t)&lpp[plast] - 1) -
> + (xfs_caddr_t)block);
> + } else {
> + __be32 *spp = &pp->s;
> +
> + first = (int)((xfs_caddr_t)&spp[pfirst - 1] -
> + (xfs_caddr_t)block);
> + last = (int)(((xfs_caddr_t)&spp[plast] - 1) -
> + (xfs_caddr_t)block);
Hmmmm. That's not very nice with all those casts. It's clear that
it's pointer arithmetic, but rather messy.
> + }
> +
> + xfs_trans_log_buf(cur->bc_tp, bp, first, last);
How about:
union xfs_btree_ptr *pp;
xfs_caddr_t *block = XFS_BUF_TO_BLOCK(bp);
xfs_caddr_t start; /* first byte offset logged */
xfs_caddr_t end; /* last byte offset logged */
pp = cur->bc_ops->ptr_addr(cur, 1, XFS_BUF_TO_BLOCK(bp));
if (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_LONG_PTRS) {
__be64 *lpp = &pp->l;
start = (xfs_caddr_t)&lpp[first - 1] - block;
end = ((xfs_caddr_t)&lpp[last] - 1) - block;
} else {
__be32 *spp = &pp->s;
start = (xfs_caddr_t)&spp[first - 1] - block;
end = ((xfs_caddr_t)&spp[last] - 1) - block;
}
xfs_trans_log_buf(cur->bc_tp, bp, (int)start, (int)end);
That makes it much easier to read (to me, anyway).
> + XFS_BTREE_TRACE_CURSOR(cur, XBT_ENTRY);
> + XFS_BTREE_TRACE_ARGBI(cur, bp, fields);
> +
> + if (bp) {
> + xfs_btree_offsets(fields,
> + (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_LONG_PTRS) ?
> + loffsets : soffsets,
^^
Some stray whitespace there.
> + XFS_BB_NUM_BITS, &first, &last);
> + xfs_trans_log_buf(cur->bc_tp, bp, first, last);
> + } else {
> + /* XXX(hch): maybe factor out into a method? */
> + xfs_trans_log_inode(cur->bc_tp, cur->bc_private.b.ip,
> + XFS_ILOG_FBROOT(cur->bc_private.b.whichfork));
I don't think it is necessary at this point.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-30 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-29 19:31 [PATCH 15/21] implement generic xfs_btree_rshift Christoph Hellwig
2008-07-30 6:08 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2008-08-01 19:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-08-02 1:20 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-02 15:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080730060808.GP13395@disturbed \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.