Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs_db: show nlink fields for di_version == 3, too

Carlos Maiolino
2015-03-09T18:49:30Z

I'm not sure why we differentiate inode versions here, to print the nlink, I
probably have never seen a filesystem with di_version == 1 (feeling young :)

Why does it needs to be tested? I don't think di_version 1 didn't have nlink
field, but if it did, and if this is the only difference, in this subject, I
don't see a problem in having it tested with >= 2. But, if there could be more
than only this difference, maybe some kind of helper function, or even a macro
to make this test, taking into account the di_version.

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:00:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Printing inodes with di_version == 3 skips the nlink
> fields, because they are only printed if di_version == 2.
> This was intended to separate them from di_version == 1,
> but it mistakenly excluded di_version == 3, which also contains
> these fields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Not sure; is >= 2 ok, or should it be == 2 || == 3?
> Choose your poison, I guess.
>
> diff --git a/db/inode.c b/db/inode.c
> index 982acb7..c26e1a0 100644
> --- a/db/inode.c
> +++ b/db/inode.c
> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ inode_core_nlinkv2_count(
> ASSERT(startoff == 0);
> ASSERT(obj == iocur_top->data);
> dic = obj;
> - return dic->di_version == 2;
> + return dic->di_version >= 2;
> }
>
> static int
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ inode_core_onlink_count(
> ASSERT(startoff == 0);
> ASSERT(obj == iocur_top->data);
> dic = obj;
> - return dic->di_version == 2;
> + return dic->di_version >= 2;
> }
>
> static int
> @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ inode_core_projid_count(
> ASSERT(startoff == 0);
> ASSERT(obj == iocur_top->data);
> dic = obj;
> - return dic->di_version == 2;
> + return dic->di_version >= 2;
> }
>
> static int
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

--
Carlos