Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] bcache: add comments to mark member offset of struct cache_sb_disk

[Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>]

On 2020/7/15 17:08, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 15/07/2020 11:03, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2020/7/15 14:02, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 7/15/20 7:45 AM, Coly Li wrote:
>>>> This patch adds comments to mark each member of struct cache_sb_disk,
>>>> it is helpful to understand the bcache superblock on-disk layout.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/uapi/linux/bcache.h | 39 +++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bcache.h b/include/uapi/linux/bcache.h
>>>> index 9a1965c6c3d0..afbd1b56a661 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bcache.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bcache.h
>>>> @@ -158,33 +158,33 @@ static inline struct bkey *bkey_idx(const struct
>>>> bkey *k, unsigned int nr_keys)
>>>>   #define BDEV_DATA_START_DEFAULT        16    /* sectors */
>>>>     struct cache_sb_disk {
>>>> -    __le64            csum;
>>>> -    __le64            offset;    /* sector where this sb was written */
>>>> -    __le64            version;
>>>> +/*000*/    __le64            csum;
>>>> +/*008*/    __le64            offset;    /* sector where this sb was
>>>> written */
>>>> +/*010*/    __le64            version;
>>>>   -    __u8            magic[16];
>>>> +/*018*/    __u8            magic[16];
>>>>   -    __u8            uuid[16];
>>>> +/*028*/    __u8            uuid[16];
>>>>       union {
>>>> -        __u8        set_uuid[16];
>>>> +/*038*/        __u8        set_uuid[16];
>>>>           __le64        set_magic;
>>>>       };
>>>> -    __u8            label[SB_LABEL_SIZE];
>>>> +/*048*/    __u8            label[SB_LABEL_SIZE];
>>>>   -    __le64            flags;
>>>> -    __le64            seq;
>>>> -    __le64            pad[8];
>>>> +/*068*/    __le64            flags;
>>>> +/*070*/    __le64            seq;
>>>> +/*078*/    __le64            pad[8];
>>>>         union {
>>>>       struct {
>>>>           /* Cache devices */
>>>> -        __le64        nbuckets;    /* device size */
>>>> +/*0b8*/        __le64        nbuckets;    /* device size */
>>>>   -        __le16        block_size;    /* sectors */
>>>> -        __le16        bucket_size;    /* sectors */
>>>> +/*0c0*/        __le16        block_size;    /* sectors */
>>>> +/*0c2*/        __le16        bucket_size;    /* sectors */
>>>>   -        __le16        nr_in_set;
>>>> -        __le16        nr_this_dev;
>>>> +/*0c4*/        __le16        nr_in_set;
>>>> +/*0c6*/        __le16        nr_this_dev;
>>>>       };
>>>>       struct {
>>>>           /* Backing devices */
>>>> @@ -198,14 +198,15 @@ struct cache_sb_disk {
>>>>       };
>>>>       };
>>>>   -    __le32            last_mount;    /* time overflow in y2106 */
>>>> +/*0c8*/    __le32            last_mount;    /* time overflow in y2106 */
>>>>   -    __le16            first_bucket;
>>>> +/*0cc*/    __le16            first_bucket;
>>>>       union {
>>>> -        __le16        njournal_buckets;
>>>> +/*0ce*/        __le16        njournal_buckets;
>>>>           __le16        keys;
>>>>       };
>>>> -    __le64            d[SB_JOURNAL_BUCKETS];    /* journal buckets */
>>>> +/*0d0*/    __le64            d[SB_JOURNAL_BUCKETS];    /* journal
>>>> buckets */
>>>> +/*8d0*/
>>>>   };
>>>>     struct cache_sb {
>>>>
>>> Common practice is to place comments at the end; please don't use the
>>> start of the line here.
>>
>> Hi Hannes,
>>
>> When I try to move the offset comment to the line end, I find it
>> conflicts with normal code comment, e.g.
>>    __le64            d[SB_JOURNAL_BUCKETS];    /* journal buckets */
>>
>> I have to add the offset comment to the line start. I guess this is why
>> ocfs2 code adds the offset comment at the line start.
>>
>> So finally I have to keep the offset comment on line start still...
> 
> Why at them at all? pahole -C or crash/gdb will show them for you if you're
> interested and if you need it in the code you can use offsetof().
> 
> I don't really see a good reason to add these comments. 
> 

You are right :-)  With pahole there is no reason for having this patch.

Thanks for the informative hint, this patch will disappear in next
version series.

Coly Li