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 625A67FB2 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3106B8F80C8 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YKyCNqv5aYDl1qWf (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:44:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:43:59 -0500 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_* Message-ID: <20150209214359.GN18336@laptop.bfoster> References: <54D53E8C.8070207@redhat.com> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> <20150209130926.GA18336@laptop.bfoster> <20150209211744.GT12722@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150209211744.GT12722@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:17:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:09:26AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:35:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:22:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > These 2 patches provide information about which filesystem > > > > hit the error... > > > > > > If we are going to touch every one of these macros, then can we > > > rename them to something a little shorter like XFS_CORRUPT_GOTO() > > > and XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN() at the same time? That will make the code a > > > little less eye-bleedy where there are lots of these statements, > > > and make formatting of complex checks a bit easier, too... > > > > > > > XFS_CORRUPT_DOSOMETHING() jumps out to me as indicate corruption if the > > logic statement evaluates as true rather than false. The latter (e.g., > > assert-like logic) is how they work today, so that could be a bit > > confusing to somebody who isn't already familiar with how these macros > > work. > > Someone not familiar with XFS conventions is already going to get > caught by "should be true" logic of these statements anyway as the > logic is the opposite of BUG_ON() and WARN_ON(). i.e. BUG_ON(1) > will kill the kernel, while ASSERT(1) indicates everything is fine. > BUG_ON() and ASSERT() are self-explanatory, the latter being a pretty standard/common thing ('man assert'). As Eric mentioned, the WANT bit of the macro is what suggests assert-like semantics. > I suggested shortening the macro because it makes the code that uses > it extensively shouty and hard to read because it splits logic > statements across lines regularly (e.g __xfs_dir3_data_check). I > want to use this more extensively in verifiers to give better > corruption detection reporting, but the current macro will make the > verifier code rather ugly. Hence my suggestion to make it shorter, > neater and a little less shouty... > Sure, but ASSERT_CORRUPT_RET() is the same length as the example above. ASSERT_CORRUPT_GOTO() is only a few chars longer than the associated example. We could still use WANT over ASSERT I suppose to shorten it up further. Either of those are at least still self-explanatory in my opinion. Brian > > Unfortunately, nothing shorter than the current naming immediately comes > > to mind... :/ We could kill the XFS_ prefix I suppose or even invert the > > logic of the calls, but that's certainly a more significant change. > > Thoughts? > > No logic changes, please. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs