Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Btrfs-progs: add more subvol fields to btrfs-list

[Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Hello,

> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:39:55 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> [...]
>>> +	if (ritem && !is_v0) {
>>> +		rinfo->cgen = btrfs_root_ctransid(ritem);
>>> +		rinfo->ogen = btrfs_root_otransid(ritem);
>>> +		rinfo->sgen = btrfs_root_stransid(ritem);
>>> +		rinfo->rgen = btrfs_root_rtransid(ritem);
>>> +		rinfo->ctime = btrfs_stack_timespec_sec(&ritem->ctime);
>>> +		rinfo->otime = btrfs_stack_timespec_sec(&ritem->otime);
>>> +		rinfo->stime = btrfs_stack_timespec_sec(&ritem->stime);
>>> +		rinfo->rtime = btrfs_stack_timespec_sec(&ritem->rtime);
>>> +		memcpy(rinfo->uuid, ritem->uuid, BTRFS_UUID_SIZE);
>>> +		memcpy(rinfo->puuid, ritem->parent_uuid, BTRFS_UUID_SIZE);
>>> +		memcpy(rinfo->ruuid, ritem->received_uuid, BTRFS_UUID_SIZE);
>>> +	} else if (ritem && is_v0 && root_offset) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * old style (v0) root items don't contain an otransid field.
>>> +		 * But for snapshots, root_offset equals to its original
>>> +		 * generation.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		rinfo->ogen = root_offset;
>>> +	}
>>
>> 	We set it rinfo->ogen = root_offset only if:
>> 	1> for root_item_v0
>> 	2> it is a snapshot.
>>
>> 	Besides for a snapshot it's root_offset is always none zero.
>> 	so we do not need (is_v0 && root_offset) both.
>> 	Actually, Patch V2 doses the correct thing.
>>
> 
> Patch V2 was accessing the otransid field also for root_item_v0 which
> does not have this field. This was not correct.
> 
> That root_offset != 0 thing is because add_root() and therefore
> set_root_info() is called twice, once for BTRFS_ROOT_BACKREF_KEY and
> once for BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY. In both cases, the arguments to add_root()
> are only partially supplied and those values that are not available are
> set to zero. The old code everywhere had this ... != 0 else don't set
> the value, to handle this double call to add_root(), and I replaced most
> of it by passing a root_item pointer of NULL in the BACKREF case (where
> the old code just set gen=0, time=0, uuid=0 ...), and reading the values
> of the root_item down in set_root_info() in the ROOT_ITEM case. Only
> root_offset remains which is set to 0 in the BACKREF case and to the
> key's offset value in the ROOT_ITEM case. One could now argue that in
> the first case where root_offset is not valid, ritem is set to NULL and
> therefore the equation (ritem && is_v0 && root_offset) is equal to
> (ritem && is_v0), but IMHO a deep subfunction should not make use of too
> much information that is part of the functions that call the subfunction.
> 
> Summary: Patch V3 does the correct thing.
> 


After reading carefully, i agree patch V3 is correct~~, thanks
for so detailed illustration^_^

Thanks,
Wang

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
>