From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F9FC433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3C061A12 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237588AbhCXStL (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:49:11 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52888 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237391AbhCXSsh (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:48:37 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DF8A61A12; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:48:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1616611717; bh=PlFbIe5dTJty9NLZOt7tGWpV/U6xUD+9j6gX9cuoU9k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Sy67eVt3J4RmyowOnSWDVgfwg8l9wI/pxBvrzWeneJNvE8c5Iq1CysaWnSwyvJWIp hbuobeYu1ZcIqZEEtywyLXjmuf8yF14qKlPpRCmRGS3MI+5WJ0ERZyn7oU30tUmfiY ZN+WX6QKVLg53rBzVfHU1SNCqeM0UNd7UL7SyUBfOTet9xyD8NiS8tsQKLhYNpH++j hwaoqedbVfWwbLkMTti00p1SaE7xtFH4icIGEpLGKPhBlpupyDw7+273dtEs/h/HwS nJbrQTGVHA/znzf/tau0I3t9kZmjKRT/GSM6FZxbuhukX2kEwgagfgwPgIFvSpyAur ftsnisd5ZgpnQ== Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:48:35 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: lukas@herbolt.com Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfs-docs question Message-ID: <20210324184835.GU22100@magnolia> References: <481e3f11dda1f44efe5c93c24a3a70d9@herbolt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <481e3f11dda1f44efe5c93c24a3a70d9@herbolt.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:34:58AM +0100, lukas@herbolt.com wrote: > Hi, > I came across chapter in XFS documentation "12.4.1 xfs_db AGI Example" > quoting bellow: > --- > recs[1-85] = [startino,freecount,free]1:[96,0,0] 2:[160,0,0] 3:[224,0,0] > 4:[288,0,0] > 5:[352,0,0] 6:[416,0,0] 7:[480,0,0] > 8:[544,0,0] > 9:[608,0,0] 10:[672,0,0] 11:[736,0,0] > 12:[800,0,0] > ... >                                     85:[5792,9,0xff80000000000000] > > Most of the inode chunks on this filesystem are totally full, since the free > value is zero. > This means that we ought to expect inode 160 to be linked somewhere in the > directory structure. > However, notice that 0xff80000000000000 in record 85 — this means that we > would expect inode 5856 > to be free. Moving on to the free inode B+tree, we see that this is indeed > the case: > --- > > As there are 9 inodes free in the last chunk of 64 inodes it gives me first > free inode 5847 (5792+55), > on the other hand inode 5856 is also free as it's last inode in the chunk. > > My question is do I understand correctly that the first free inode in that > AG is 5847? Oops, yes, you are correct. The first free inode is 5847, not 5856 as stated in 12.4.1. > Thanks, bellow possible patch. It looks reasonable, but the patch needs to have a Signed-off-by tag with your name and email (per kernel patch submission rules[1]) before I can proceed with review. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin > --- > diff --git a/design/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/allocation_groups.asciidoc > b/design/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/allocation_groups.asciidoc > index 992615d..cdc8545 100644 > --- a/design/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/allocation_groups.asciidoc > +++ b/design/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/allocation_groups.asciidoc > @@ -1099,7 +1099,7 @@ recs[1-85] = [startino,freecount,free] >  Most of the inode chunks on this filesystem are totally full, since the > +free+ >  value is zero.  This means that we ought to expect inode 160 to be linked >  somewhere in the directory structure.  However, notice that > 0xff80000000000000 This patch seems to have been line wrapped. Would you mind resending it with the DCO tag I mentioned above, and without wrapping? Or as a text attachment if that's the only option? --D > -in record 85 -- this means that we would expect inode 5856 to be free. >  Moving > +in record 85 -- this means that we would expect inode 5847 to be free. >  Moving >  on to the free inode B+tree, we see that this is indeed the case: > --- > > -- > Lukas Herbolt