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

Eric Sandeen
2015-03-09T20:42:00Z

On 3/9/15 2:49 PM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> 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 :)

di_version=1 had only a 16-bit nlink field, now called di_onlink ("old
nlink"). Later a new 32-bit structure member was added for this purpose.

xfs_db decides what to print, from this table:

{ "nlinkv1", FLDT_UINT16D, OI(COFF(onlink)), inode_core_nlinkv1_count,
FLD_COUNT, TYP_NONE },
{ "nlinkv2", FLDT_UINT32D, OI(COFF(nlink)), inode_core_nlinkv2_count,
FLD_COUNT, TYP_NONE },
{ "onlink", FLDT_UINT16D, OI(COFF(onlink)), inode_core_onlink_count,
FLD_COUNT, TYP_NONE },

where the specified functions test whether the field should be printed.

This means "nlinkv1" will be displayed only if di_version==1, and
"onlink" & "nlinkv2" will be displayed only if di_version==2 (today)
or >= 2 (with my patch).

(the di_nlink field got renamed to di_onlink, and a new 16-bit di_nlink
member was added. xfs_db doesn't always print the actual structure names
verbatim)

> 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.

It's tested because on a version 1 inode, the 32-bit nlink field doesn't even
exist. We'd be printing random data from the disk.

-Eric

> 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