Re: /fs/ext4/ext4.h add a comment to ext4_dir_entry_2

[Jonny Grant <jg@jguk.org>]

On 05/05/2020 00:00, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
>> On May 4, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 04:26:35PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2020, at 6:52 AM, Jonny Grant <jg@jguk.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Could a comment be added to clarify 'file_type' ?
>>>>
>>>> struct ext4_dir_entry_2 {
>>>>    __le32    inode;            /* Inode number */
>>>>    __le16    rec_len;        /* Directory entry length */
>>>>    __u8    name_len;        /* Name length */
>>>>    __u8    file_type;
>>>>    char    name[EXT4_NAME_LEN];    /* File name */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This what I am proposing to add:
>>>>
>>>>    __u8    file_type;        /* See directory file type macros below */
>>>
>>> For this kind of structure field, it makes sense to reference the macro
>>> names directly, like:
>>>
>>> 	__u8	file_type;	/* See EXT4_FT_* type macros below */
>>>
>>> since "macros below" may be ambiguous as the header changes over time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even better (IMHO) is to use a named enum for this, like:
>>>
>>>         enum ext4_file_type file_type:8; /* See EXT4_FT_ types below */
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Ext4 directory file types.  Only the low 3 bits are used.  The
>>> * other bits are reserved for now.
>>> */
>>> enum ext4_file_type {
>>> 	EXT4_FT_UNKNOWN		= 0,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_REG_FILE	= 1,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_DIR		= 2,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_CHRDEV		= 3,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_BLKDEV		= 4,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_FIFO		= 5,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_SOCK		= 6,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_SYMLINK		= 7,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_MAX,
>>> 	EXT4_FT_DIR_CSUM	= 0xDE
>>> };
>>>
>>> so that the allowed values for this field are clear from the definition.
>>> However, the use of a fixed-with bitfield (enum :8) is a GCC-ism and Ted
>>> may be against that for portability reasons, since the kernel and
>>> userspace headers should be as similar as possible.
>>
>> This is an on-disk structure.  Do /not/ make this an enum because that
>> would replace a __u8 with an int, which will break directories.
> 
> No, that is what the fixed bitfield declaration "enum ... :8" would do -
> declare this enum to be an 8-bit integer.  I've verified that this works
> as expected with GCC, to allow an enum with a specific size, like :8 or
> :32 or :64.  Obviously, if you specify a bitfield size that doesn't align
> with the start of the next structure field, there would be padding added
> so that the next field is properly aligned, but that isn't the case here.
> 
> Since e2fsprogs needs to be portable to other compilers/OS, I'm not sure
> if Ted would want the kernel header declaration to be different than the
> e2fsprogs header.  I've grown to like using enum for these kind of "flags"
> definitions, since they are much more concrete than a bare "int flags"
> declaration, and still better than "int flags; /* see EXT4_FT_* below */"
> since the enum is a hard compiler linkage vs. just a comment, for the
> same reasons that static inline functions are better than CPP macros.
> 
> Cheers, Andreas

Hi Andreas

Re changing the macros,
how about using the following approach?


const __u8 EXT4_FT_UNKNOWN = 0;
const __u8 EXT4_FT_REG_FILE = 1;
etc

Generally I prefer to avoid macros if I can personally.

Cheers, Jonny