From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 69B041F938 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 05:01:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779944505; cv=none; b=T2NHi0TCM3HgaMCx5g81+9jy6ymroiEWO+WroH6yXcRSURRfII5at1mnJIGaMuMO1/62b7vk0fTaU20yyt8cwzXNwQUYrTNB7MQufeX4v/LNIkTMoHBVVSb4gvnCl7TH+1OhqB3XBkpehpiYKnYaiT8e0491PkYXZ6GtNjBTDC4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779944505; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+9C/eKIkL7P41BOFed8VDaxfQZU/9OJKYDVZR4PzZBs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pNUb29EzJ+7c2czGpj/jyDaEJ1w0J74nplBx/MszJeQ5WRxWaRRt5PaEdnfSTWqOXxwX2s1s57s5hceo9pVSTzS8tbhyIZvq9pPtbOsNellY6Fgdd2UvqkreA5IS5KJIqgfzVznvAh+OZWYv4obAJthV/ActMJyBLdVBFyUQpfw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mq60wZF+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mq60wZF+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 02D951F000E9; Thu, 28 May 2026 05:01:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779944504; bh=vKx5ye0bIdMuICKqJ7N6TjLMEzb4zaloqow+Z6nBs5Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=mq60wZF+NrxRULatPZSezBLSL8YULbT60m/7p1J8QScd6aXvnnUQQGaEV5lBDXnrh Ejw7l+RgG1ssFCPN00KieGYd1Y43/hJqYdSPCjT48AGLoJq92DQZD8IbDr7RBE9lcb UcK+vKYH384qUDINS7rsPezUcnSnoycMx6KzJVUdf/17uqNjGX+vzvn+MWupNBI+7v pyKQc1ny8AtmwKmAIcW61yERzfYk+51Zexqzdp7wEYJ14mnUx5JUwg8ZTbEr2/uwZI j800EH/vJB542driCfbIO068hmO27jt/sLswOBvBLC0BrumM6eCXOz9M4c+uQf+MlR C1ralTuQTP3Zg== Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 22:01:43 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Lukas Herbolt Cc: sandeen@sandeen.net, aalbersh@kernel.org, dgc@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] xfsprogs: mkfs.xfs clean up unused dft option in various validators Message-ID: <20260528050143.GG6078@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260525075752.4159504-1-lukas@herbolt.com> <20260525075752.4159504-6-lukas@herbolt.com> 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: <20260525075752.4159504-6-lukas@herbolt.com> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 09:57:52AM +0200, Lukas Herbolt wrote: > The struct cli_params dft was only used in validate_blocksize(). > Now the cli.blocksize is always set either over bld_dflt or > file_dflt or from command line/config file. All the other functions > are not accessing the dft in their body. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Herbolt I wish this had come first, but oh well whatever. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" --D > --- > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 24 +++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > index cb9c528021d6..5d1d27235a72 100644 > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > @@ -2392,7 +2392,6 @@ static void > validate_sectorsize( > struct mkfs_params *cfg, > struct cli_params *cli, > - struct cli_params *dft, > struct fs_topology *ft, > int dry_run, > int force_overwrite) > @@ -2481,18 +2480,19 @@ _("block size %d cannot be smaller than sector size %d\n"), > static void > validate_blocksize( > struct mkfs_params *cfg, > - struct cli_params *cli, > - struct cli_params *dft) > + struct cli_params *cli) > { > /* > * Blocksize and sectorsize first, other things depend on them > * For RAID4/5/6 we want to align sector size and block size, > * so we need to start with the device geometry extraction too. > + * > + * The cli->blocksize size is already set from the bld_dflt > + * or from file_dflt or via command line. We just need to check > + * if the value is within our limits. > */ > - if (!cli->blocksize) > - cfg->blocksize = dft->blocksize; > - else > - cfg->blocksize = cli->blocksize; > + > + cfg->blocksize = cli->blocksize; > cfg->blocklog = libxfs_highbit32(cfg->blocksize); > > /* validate block sizes are in range */ > @@ -2522,7 +2522,6 @@ static void > validate_log_sectorsize( > struct mkfs_params *cfg, > struct cli_params *cli, > - struct cli_params *dft, > struct fs_topology *ft) > { > > @@ -2714,7 +2713,6 @@ static void > validate_zoned( > struct mkfs_params *cfg, > struct cli_params *cli, > - struct cli_params *dft, > struct zone_topology *zt) > { > if (!cli->xi->data.isfile) { > @@ -6163,8 +6161,8 @@ main( > * Extract as much of the valid config as we can from the CLI input > * before opening the libxfs devices. > */ > - validate_blocksize(&cfg, &cli, &bld_dft); > - validate_sectorsize(&cfg, &cli, &bld_dft, &ft, dry_run, force_overwrite); > + validate_blocksize(&cfg, &cli); > + validate_sectorsize(&cfg, &cli, &ft, dry_run, force_overwrite); > > /* > * XXX: we still need to set block size and sector size global variables > @@ -6173,8 +6171,8 @@ main( > blocksize = cfg.blocksize; > sectorsize = cfg.sectorsize; > > - validate_log_sectorsize(&cfg, &cli, &bld_dft, &ft); > - validate_zoned(&cfg, &cli, &bld_dft, &zt); > + validate_log_sectorsize(&cfg, &cli, &ft); > + validate_zoned(&cfg, &cli, &zt); > validate_sb_features(&cfg, &cli); > > /* > -- > 2.54.0 > >