From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p6PFvkcm009084 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:57:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUFTARG_NAME From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110724113724.GC26332@infradead.org> References: <20110722003226.21069.58401.sendpatchset@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110722003408.21069.44409.sendpatchset@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> <1311364181.2771.114.camel@doink> <20110724113724.GC26332@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:57:40 -0500 Message-ID: <1311609460.2914.25.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 Cc: Chandra Seetharaman , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 07:37 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:49:41PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 17:34 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > Remove the definition and usages of the macro XFS_BUFTARG_NAME. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > > > > Wow, I hadn't looked at the definition of > > xfs_buf_target_name() before. It's not safe > > (using a pointer to since-released stack space), > > though in practice it's going to be fine. > > > > Defining it as an inline function with a static > > buffer would at least avoid that, though it > > means it's not reentrant either. > > IMHO the right fix is to just kill it off entirely. All XFS messages > now have the filesystem name prefixed to them, and while we can have > up to three devices, all these error messages can only hit either > the main or the log device, and it's obvious from the context which > one we did hit. That's an even better idea. I was only reacting to the code in front of me, but yes, removing it entirely would be good. For now though, I intend to commit this (in its now updated form). It can be removed as a separate patch. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs