From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8GHTamq026247 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:29:36 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 73D92448F56 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id uBY3MigLDnXoCkDs for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:31:07 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] always use struct xfs_btree_block instead of short / longform structures Message-ID: <20080916173107.GB26187@lst.de> References: <20080915004657.GF12213@lst.de> <20080916062616.GY5811@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080916062616.GY5811@disturbed> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 04:26:16PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:46:57AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Always use the generic xfs_btree_block type instead of the short / long > > structures. Add XFS_BTREE_SBLOCK_LEN / XFS_BTREE_LBLOCK_LEN defines for > > the length of a short / long form block. The rationale for this is that > > we will grow more btree block header variants to support CRCs and other > > RAS information, and always accessing them through the same datatype > > with unions for the short / long form pointers makes implementing this > > much easier. > ....... > > @@ -382,16 +382,16 @@ xfs_alloc_fixup_trees( > > } > > #ifdef DEBUG > > { > > - xfs_alloc_block_t *bnoblock; > > - xfs_alloc_block_t *cntblock; > > + struct xfs_btree_block *bnoblock; > > + struct xfs_btree_block *cntblock; > > Only need one tab there? I think this was aligning to something, but I don't really care. > > - bnoblock = XFS_BUF_TO_ALLOC_BLOCK(bno_cur->bc_bufs[0]); > > - cntblock = XFS_BUF_TO_ALLOC_BLOCK(cnt_cur->bc_bufs[0]); > > XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN( > > - be16_to_cpu(bnoblock->bb_numrecs) == > > - be16_to_cpu(cntblock->bb_numrecs)); > > + bnoblock->bb_numrecs == > > + cntblock->bb_numrecs); > > The comparison could probably be made one line.... That would be far over 80 characters. > > +#define XFS_ALLOC_BLOCK_LEN(mp) XFS_BTREE_SBLOCK_LEN > > + > > +/* > > * Record, key, and pointer address macros for btree blocks. > > + * (note that some of these may appear unused, but they are used in userspace) > > Shouldn't that comment go in one of the previous patches? > (and others) Yes.