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 0DC8D2BE652 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:26:20 +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=1760559981; cv=none; b=Uok9kBZEpAQGzBGsIz89Qlvm3MdRp23qoRWa8lMnd9pdS85fRJGCx1HJ4YClb6OMOpH//GoSkCLHz27mvNEtCKb0H1oNo5kVF3uSA7IGIev9fRbcMOeVqmImytS/q+sFWtTSIbwYHF74pkFMBzR/vVkuv+yeC8reRIspKQv4C3w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760559981; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rH8yEEZGj/r22kAqm5PG/ZRkAvWqACkvxC2fKgbam0w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=O1FGAI25fFo1gW8ax8S61pRdRT1tfhECIEB3THWIKSG5lEcHpQaMenP+0I8kdoijHKAwopT5ZQUXW02te2KdGTpGPu68sgt3dsx/wFkAVb36I8BfSnU4YDiVl7cJJebgXe9MzGfmrTbOheBWXd3rT9m5nItT2U28J3oC4Mj8VnA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pS3d7foP; 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="pS3d7foP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92DD7C4CEF8; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:26:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760559980; bh=rH8yEEZGj/r22kAqm5PG/ZRkAvWqACkvxC2fKgbam0w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pS3d7foPLA8lMtop3kw1/win2w/Mnc0s9Zyh8rWYvBwOZjRtY6u2apJ0pahGywoRe RVxSOGdHBSdAkNLeb/LnWlOGZFUUL7khE31U+8xnjxG4YJ8+o3YfhEXvChU9Phim4+ GOnMmHr2PY0cGGgEakCUsDevXBKPdpgR3qhFYAAER4EU0L91r3DtAJY1eVLP/dp4Ek oWUORynFl/B6EuqtFc/OzfwyUsaZ88fP2XfM5L2UBdrpJH3pOykMBdgqAerzVZHgKh d3mbX2Fgf0HHmdbrzMqu5ueDDB82M4k+gE8qGlvURzIxEqW6r11oUT448/pGZPJmzE LINl9OpI/Ylhw== Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 13:26:20 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Carlos Maiolino , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] xfs: don't use xlog_in_core_2_t in struct xlog_in_core Message-ID: <20251015202620.GF6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20251013024228.4109032-1-hch@lst.de> <20251013024228.4109032-4-hch@lst.de> <20251014214742.GI6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20251015043422.GB7253@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20251015043422.GB7253@lst.de> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 06:34:22AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 02:47:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 11:42:07AM +0900, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Most accessed to the on-disk log record header are for the original > > > xlog_rec_header. Make that the main structure, and case for the > > > single remaining place using other union legs. > > > > > > This prepares for removing xlog_in_core_2_t entirely. > > > > Er... so xlog_rec_header is the header that gets written out at the > > start of any log buffer? > > Yes. > > > And if a log record has more than > > XLOG_CYCLE_DATA_SIZE basic blocks (BBs) in it, then it'll have some > > quantity of "extended" headers in the form of a xlog_rec_ext_header > > right after the xlog_rec_header, right? > > They are not directly behіnd the current definition of the > xlog_rec_header, but rather at each multiple of 512 bytes past the > start of the xlog_rec_header. And that only became obvious after I read through that patch that removes xlog_in_core_2_t. > > And both the regular and ext > > headers both have a __be32 array containing the original first four > > bytes of each BB, because each BB has a munged version of the LSN cycle > > stamped into the first four bytes, right? > > Yes. > > > The previous patch refactored how the cycle_data transformation > > happened, right? > > Yes. > > > So this patch just gets rid of the strange ic_header #define, and > > updates the code to access ic_data->hic_header directly? And now that > > we have xlog_cycle_data to abstract the xlog_rec_header -> > > xlog_in_core_2_t casting, this just works fine here. Right? > > Yes. I'm satisfied then. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" --D