From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705C429E02 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <523A134B.6010609@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:39 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node References: <52322B67.80305@redhat.com> <523A0086.1080000@sgi.com> <523A0AF0.3000507@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <523A0AF0.3000507@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'" , Eric Sandeen On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5), >>> but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4. >>> >>> Level 5 would be a depth of 6. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen >>> --- ... >> I think the current code is correct. > So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?) > > -Eric Well, I am frequently noted as being permanently confused! I was referring to the kernel use of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH. All the comparison indicate that having a value of 1 to XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH as being okay. When it accesses the xfs_da_state_blk_t blk[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH], it decrements the index first there is no blk[] entry for a leaf that is why it does not need another entry. I need to study this more. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs