From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695427F4E for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:49:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5757B8F8039 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AvyEuvbr28Xi8i1B for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:49:15 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: deduplicate xlog_do_recovery_pass() Message-ID: <20140821044915.GX20518@dastard> References: <53F5651C.8030206@redhat.com> <53F57758.9070007@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53F57758.9070007@sandeen.net> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:36:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/20/14, 10:18 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > In xlog_do_recovery_pass(), there are 2 distinct cases: > > non-wrapped and wrapped log recovery. > > > > If we find a wrapped log, we recover around the end > > of the log, and then handle the rest of recovery > > exactly as in the non-wrapped case - using exactly the same > > (duplicated) code. > > > > Rather than having the same code in both cases, we can > > get the wrapped portion out of the way first if needed, > > and then recover the non-wrapped portion of the log. > > > > There should be no functional change here, just code > > reorganization & deduplication. > > > > The patch looks a bit bigger than it really is; the last > > hunk is whitespace changes (un-indenting). > > > > Tested with xfstests "check -g log" on a stock configuration. > > which didn't actually hit any log wraps. Does xfstests > really not cover wrapped log recovery? anyway, something like this > on a small log: xfs/016 Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs