From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
	p6JJnG3D191802 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:49:16 -0500
Subject: Re: xfs: encapsulate a block of debug code
From: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110719171028.GA31088@infradead.org>
References: <201107181814.p6IIEAZm028909@stout.americas.sgi.com>
	<20110719171028.GA31088@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:49:12 -0500
Message-ID: <1311104952.1964.24.camel@doink>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com

On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:10 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:14:09PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > Pull into a helper function some debug-only code that validates a
> > xfs_da_blkinfo structure that's been read from disk.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
> > 
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c |   31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: b/fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> > @@ -692,6 +692,24 @@ xfs_da_join(xfs_da_state_t *state)
> >  	return(error);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef	DEBUG
> > +static void
> > +xfs_da_blkinfo_validate(struct xfs_da_blkinfo *blkinfo, __u16 level)
> 
> I'm not sure the name is a good one.  E.g. the forw/backw pointers
> really rely on this node not having any siblings.  Which they shoudn't
> have here, but that's not generally true of any blkinfo.
> 
> Otherwise looks fine.
> 

What about xfs_da_blkinfo_onlychild_validate()?

It's pushing the limits of acceptable name length
as far as I'm concerned though.  Let me know if
this is good enough, or if you have another idea.
Thanks.

					-Alex

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs