public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: add a if_xfs_meta_bad macro for testing and logging bad metadata
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:01:43 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191113000143.GC6219@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191111134904.GB46312@bfoster>

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:51:19AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 05:17:58PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Add a new macro, if_xfs_meta_bad, which we will use to integrate some
> > corruption reporting when the corruption test expression is true.  This
> > will be used in the next patch to remove the ugly XFS_WANT_CORRUPT*
> > macros.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > ---
> 
> Ooh a new bikeshed... :)
> 
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h |   16 +++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h
> > index 2271db4e8d66..d0fb1e612c42 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h
> > @@ -229,6 +229,10 @@ int xfs_rw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, unsigned int count,
> >  #define ASSERT(expr)	\
> >  	(likely(expr) ? (void)0 : assfail(NULL, #expr, __FILE__, __LINE__))
> >  
> > +#define xfs_meta_bad(mp, expr)	\
> > +	(unlikely(expr) ? assfail((mp), #expr, __FILE__, __LINE__), \
> > +			  true : false)
> > +
> >  #else	/* !DEBUG */
> >  
> >  #ifdef XFS_WARN
> > @@ -236,13 +240,23 @@ int xfs_rw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, unsigned int count,
> >  #define ASSERT(expr)	\
> >  	(likely(expr) ? (void)0 : asswarn(NULL, #expr, __FILE__, __LINE__))
> >  
> > +#define xfs_meta_bad(mp, expr)	\
> > +	(unlikely(expr) ? asswarn((mp), #expr, __FILE__, __LINE__), \
> > +			  true : false)
> > +
> >  #else	/* !DEBUG && !XFS_WARN */
> >  
> > -#define ASSERT(expr)	((void)0)
> > +#define ASSERT(expr)		((void)0)
> > +
> > +#define xfs_meta_bad(mp, expr)	\
> > +	(unlikely(expr) ? XFS_ERROR_REPORT(#expr, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, (mp)), \
> > +			  true : false)
> >  
> >  #endif /* XFS_WARN */
> >  #endif /* DEBUG */
> >  
> > +#define if_xfs_meta_bad(mp, expr)	if (xfs_meta_bad((mp), (expr)))
> > +
> d
> FWIW, 'xfs_meta_bad' doesn't really tell me anything about what the
> macro is for, particularly since the logic that determines whether
> metadata is bad is fed into it. IOW, I read that and expect the macro to
> actually do something generic to determine whether metadata is bad.
> 
> Also having taken a quick look at the next patch, I agree with Christoph
> on embedding if logic into the macro itself, at least with respect to
> readability. It makes the code look like a typo/syntax error to me. :P

It's not just you. ;)

> I agree that the existing macros are ugly, but they at least express
> operational semantics reasonably well between [_RETURN|_GOTO]. If we
> really want to fix the latter bit, perhaps the best incremental step is
> to drop the branching logic and naming portion from the existing macros
> and leave everything else as is (from the commit logs, it sounds like
> this is more along the lines of your previous version, just without the
> name change). From there perhaps we can come up with better naming
> eventually. Just a thought.

<nod> I couldn't come up with much better than XFS_IS_CORRUPT, though I
see Dave's point about:

if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp,
    xfs_measure_something() > BADNESS) {
	xfs_error(mp, "OHNO");
	return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}

Is a bit hard to read.

if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp,
		   xfs_measure_something() > BADNESS) {
	xfs_error(mp, "OHNO");
	return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}

Isn't awesome either, but it at least works and is a bit more obvious.
:/

--D

> Brian
> 
> >  #define STATIC static noinline
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_XFS_RT
> > 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-13  0:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-11  1:17 [PATCH v4 0/3] xfs: refactor corruption returns Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-11  1:17 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: add a if_xfs_meta_bad macro for testing and logging bad metadata Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-11 13:51   ` Brian Foster
2019-11-13  0:01     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2019-11-11  1:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: kill the XFS_WANT_CORRUPT_* macros Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-11  8:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-12 23:08     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-11  1:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: convert open coded corruption check to use XFS_IS_CORRUPT Darrick J. Wong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191113000143.GC6219@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox