From: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>, <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
<cm224.lee@samsung.com>, <chao@kernel.org>, <sylinux@163.com>,
<miaoxie@huawei.com>
Cc: <bintian.wang@huawei.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: change the codes of checking CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG to macro
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:11:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58B014FC.6090308@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <096f8d0b-774c-2065-db96-dde455a4ec53@huawei.com>
I think we do not need to care about the CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG status of old image, I mean we
do not need to check the already-been-written node footer in the image, what we care about is the
on-going-to-write node footer, which is used for recovery.
If CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG is defined, then __set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG); is
executed in each do_checkpoint actually, and CP will have that flag for each on-going-to-write node footer.
I think the recovery process only needs to use the on-going-to-write node rather than the already-been-written
node in the old image. The already-been-written node in the old image should not appear in the node
chain of recovery process, right?
On 2017/2/24 18:29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/2/24 18:06, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> No need to check the "if" condition each time, just change it to macro codes.
> We're going to check flag in CP, not just in code of f2fs.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/node.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 +++--
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.h b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> index 3fc9c4b..3e5a58b 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> @@ -303,11 +303,11 @@ static inline void fill_node_footer_blkaddr(struct page *page, block_t blkaddr)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = le64_to_cpu(ckpt->checkpoint_ver);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> rn->footer.cp_ver = cpu_to_le64(cp_ver);
>> rn->footer.next_blkaddr = cpu_to_le32(blkaddr);
>> }
>> @@ -318,11 +318,11 @@ static inline bool is_recoverable_dnode(struct page *page)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = cur_cp_version(ckpt);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> return cp_ver == cpver_of_node(page);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index 9eb6d89..6c2e1ee 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -1573,9 +1573,10 @@ static void allocate_segment_by_default(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> {
>> if (force)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> - else if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG) &&
>> - type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> +#ifndef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + else if (type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, false);
>> +#endif
>> else if (need_SSR(sbi) && get_ssr_segment(sbi, type))
>> change_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> else
>>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Yunlong Song
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-24 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-24 10:06 [PATCH] f2fs: change the codes of checking CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG to macro Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 10:29 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:11 ` Yunlong Song [this message]
2017-02-24 11:37 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:57 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 18:12 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-02-25 0:54 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-25 8:10 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 8:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 18:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=58B014FC.6090308@huawei.com \
--to=yunlong.song@huawei.com \
--cc=bintian.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=cm224.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miaoxie@huawei.com \
--cc=sylinux@163.com \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.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 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).