From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01C7810F1 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:09:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730696987; cv=none; b=lmKa1VRBc9lR1UnpUzU2Fiutc8a2f4RwdEJLeSg2wGd+zNPEAy+YXaaYtoxcsTpGleDxArNEgxuyuN3fiOk3/uWNFw5PTxFwABLO9uhuGyUpeW+jUpC3VTrLmxPfqBXZkdWvPNbZwjtxVzgsuRF+t3qOxJxVnIbwtP1o+QmyD3w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730696987; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A0zBjcUZGJsZ3ZsQtRj3lrL+Qbfwd0TlRc45nRO1IEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ScKYJSn/+Yb1EtGj+Rolk3rPjzGAHy8fWNGU5gJ/FFa9hOKG5E8YBGPXTFzRkhiKGsyp9r8fOIz7b/0DFcJKzKo4q8JP/8epffogDj1GdqkJW1Zq1fa7XxR30+Od/eA1S5oyYp6D05dgufif+ubMD/fA9bn9Rinb1I9URKguLuw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=teK8gnHp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="teK8gnHp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DA05C4CECE; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:09:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730696986; bh=A0zBjcUZGJsZ3ZsQtRj3lrL+Qbfwd0TlRc45nRO1IEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=teK8gnHpbNHrO0y6PWM9gBkECBvBEiG84FvdtRO/2v79z37aAcBZ/3u6h7p0SxnTH 1wx/0rc8s+zMT3ZTiHz5dvusq2RKHY6gejCyrkRrV19tv3rE7tB+Ce2uYKZczUkU9b hdZHCg4A74AyhTSei+Bk0N4jOJ9tOVQo0mJ97Z3llMok1Fdz7ycr3ZSp0TvS6wyh6H 0V0OCJ7cUIhlKY/VyzQronLjjSsXowy6NLjN73vQuZUPPbDcGhyAhHDPxoJi3Wsv1c O9SMios8OviIMJHtkzZmcXReauUzJtQB5udHqbuvasw1xNd/HiNtA/yXc5CjTQSUPc sKnVRzvNH/FoQ== Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 21:09:45 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: port ondisk structure checks from xfs/122 to the kernel Message-ID: <20241104050945.GH2386201@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <173049942744.1909552.870447088364319361.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <173049942802.1909552.3233838341241015760.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241104042904.GC17773@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241104042904.GC17773@lst.de> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:29:04AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 03:19:05PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > +#define XFS_CHECK_SB_OFFSET(field, offset) \ > > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(struct xfs_dsb, field, offset); \ > > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(struct xfs_sb, field, offset); > > Despite comments to the contrary, xfs_sb is purely an in-memory structure > and nothing cares about it having the same layout as xfs_dsb. As we've > kept them in sync so far I'm fine with adding this check under the > expectation that I can remove it again when I finally start removing > struct xfs_sb, which is long overdue. Sounds good to me -- the only reason it's here is because the current codebase requires it. And that's only after years of djwong-wtf actually having unsynchronized xfs_sb/xfs_dsb, so I think the codebase doesn't even require it, but I've not done an exhaustive search. > Otherwise: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Thanks! --D