* [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size
@ 2018-02-07 9:19 Nikolay Borisov
2018-02-07 9:23 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-02-07 9:32 ` Su Yue
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2018-02-07 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: Nikolay Borisov
Currently the function uses a hardcoded value for the checksum size of
a sector. This is fine, given that we currently support only a single
algorithm, whose checksum is 4 bytes == sizeof(u32). Despite not
having other algorithms, btrfs' design supports using a different
algorithm whith different space requirements. To future-proof the code
query the size of the currently used algorithm from the in-memory copy
of the super block. No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
index 56c4c0ee6381..c53e2cfb72d9 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
@@ -151,7 +151,9 @@ static inline int btrfs_ordered_sum_size(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
unsigned long bytes)
{
int num_sectors = (int)DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes, fs_info->sectorsize);
- return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * sizeof(u32);
+ int csum_size = btrfs_super_csum_size(fs_info->super_copy);
+
+ return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * csum_size;
}
static inline void
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size
2018-02-07 9:19 [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size Nikolay Borisov
@ 2018-02-07 9:23 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-02-07 9:32 ` Su Yue
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-02-07 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Borisov, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]
On 2018年02月07日 17:19, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently the function uses a hardcoded value for the checksum size of
> a sector. This is fine, given that we currently support only a single
> algorithm, whose checksum is 4 bytes == sizeof(u32). Despite not
> having other algorithms, btrfs' design supports using a different
> algorithm whith different space requirements. To future-proof the code
> query the size of the currently used algorithm from the in-memory copy
> of the super block. No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Thanks,
Qu
> ---
> fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> index 56c4c0ee6381..c53e2cfb72d9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> @@ -151,7 +151,9 @@ static inline int btrfs_ordered_sum_size(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> unsigned long bytes)
> {
> int num_sectors = (int)DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes, fs_info->sectorsize);
> - return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * sizeof(u32);
> + int csum_size = btrfs_super_csum_size(fs_info->super_copy);
> +
> + return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * csum_size;
> }
>
> static inline void
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 520 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size
2018-02-07 9:19 [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size Nikolay Borisov
2018-02-07 9:23 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-02-07 9:32 ` Su Yue
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Su Yue @ 2018-02-07 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Borisov, linux-btrfs
On 02/07/2018 05:19 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently the function uses a hardcoded value for the checksum size of
> a sector. This is fine, given that we currently support only a single
> algorithm, whose checksum is 4 bytes == sizeof(u32). Despite not
> having other algorithms, btrfs' design supports using a different
> algorithm whith different space requirements. To future-proof the code
> query the size of the currently used algorithm from the in-memory copy
> of the super block. No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> index 56c4c0ee6381..c53e2cfb72d9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h
> @@ -151,7 +151,9 @@ static inline int btrfs_ordered_sum_size(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> unsigned long bytes)
> {
> int num_sectors = (int)DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes, fs_info->sectorsize);
> - return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * sizeof(u32);
> + int csum_size = btrfs_super_csum_size(fs_info->super_copy);
> +
> + return sizeof(struct btrfs_ordered_sum) + num_sectors * csum_size;
> }
>
> static inline void
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-02-07 9:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-02-07 9:19 [PATCH] btrfs: Don't hardcode the csum size in btrfs_ordered_sum_size Nikolay Borisov
2018-02-07 9:23 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-02-07 9:32 ` Su Yue
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).