From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239C97F37 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:54:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53D809EB.80207@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:54:03 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Is jdm_delete_filehandle part of a public API? References: <53D7DA7F.2040706@redhat.com> <53D7E56C.8020103@sgi.com> <53D7FE32.3080807@sgi.com> <53D801B1.5000300@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <53D801B1.5000300@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: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On 07/29/14 15:18, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 7/29/14, 3:04 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> On 07/29/14 13:18, Mark Tinguely wrote: >>> On 07/29/14 12:31, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> I was cleaning up xfsprogs to plug some leaks, and wanted to use >>>> jdm_delete_filehandle(). I noticed that it has an "hlen" argument which >>>> is unused. >>>> >>>> Can we remove that, or is this part of a public API? It's not in any >>>> manpage (or even called anywhere in xfsprogs/xfstests/xfsdump/dmapi) >>>> but it is in a public header... >>>> >>>> anyone know? >>>> >>>> If needed I guess I can just call it with hlen==0, but that seems odd. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Eric >>> >>> The first thing that comes to mind is maybe they trying to distinguish >>> between a fshandle or handle. Or they we trying to be consistent with >>> the allocation calls. >>> >>> The libhandle free_handle has the same calling parameters. It also does >>> nothing with the length. That we cannot change without breaking existing >>> code. >>> >>> I will look/ask around. >>> >>> --Mark. >> >> Looks like the code is pretty sloppy with freeing the handles. > > yeah, that's what I was going to fix :) > >> Best guess is jdm_delete_filehandle() and free_handle are trying to >> keep the API similar to DMAPI. The DMAPI handle free routine, >> dm_handle_free(), also has a second length parameter that is not used >> in the library. >> >> The code example that I saw are similar to the use in xfsdump, where >> the length used in the free comes from the handle creation/conversion >> routine. > > yup but I don't think jdm_getfshandle has anything similar does it? nope. Do you know why there is a jdm and a libhandle libs? > >> Since the xfsprogs do not open handles with calls that provide a >> length. How about FSHANDLE_SZ and FILEHANDLE_SZ depending on if it is >> a xfs_fshandle or xfs_handle? > > *shrug* it's not used anyway - I'm not sure why we'd need to invent a > macro to pass in only to have it ignored. Is there any advantage to that? never mind... handles are opaque and we should not be defining a size. I did the grep and saw that the sizes were defined and thought they were better than nothing. I did not not realize that the defines are are in jdm.c and not a header file. In that case, nothing is better than adding a define for an opaque item. > -Eric --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs