Re: [PATCH 03/19] mkfs: Sanitise the superblock feature macros

Jan Tulak
2016-04-07T13:27:29Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5855 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:

> On 4/7/16 8:09 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> >
> ...
>
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net
> <mailto:sandeen@sandeen.net>> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -981,11 +1077,21 @@ main(
> > > int worst_freelist;
> > > libxfs_init_t xi;
> > > struct fs_topology ft;
> > > - int lazy_sb_counters;
> > > - int crcs_enabled;
> > > - int finobt;
> > > - bool finobtflag;
> > > - int spinodes;
> > > + struct sb_feat_args sb_feat = {
> > > + .finobt = 1,
> > > + .finobtflag = false,
> >
> >
> > should we really have "finobtflag" in this structure?
> > This structure should only carry feature selections, not feature
> > specification flags I think. Why is this the only such flag
> > in the structure?
> >
> > Pretty sure finobtflag should stay a variable for now
> > just like lvflag (which goes with log_version).
> >
> >
> > ​It might be right to move it out​, but the flag is removed few
> > patches later entirely. Is it worth of the work? I would say nah, let
> > it die where it is. :-)
>
> Given that it doesn't seem to be a bug, I guess that might be ok,
> but in general introducing incorrect things and fixing them later
> in the series is strongly discouraged...
>
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -1517,7 +1617,14 @@ main(
> > > c = atoi(value);
> > > if (c < 0 || c > 1)
> > > illegal(value, "m
> crc");
> > > - crcs_enabled = c;
> > > + if (c && nftype) {
> > > + fprintf(stderr,
> > > +_("cannot specify both crc and ftype\n"));
> > > + usage();
> >
> > hm, why is conflict checking added? It's not what the commit says
> > the patch does.
> >
> > It also regresses the bug I fixed in
> >
> > commit b990de8ba4e2df2bc76a140799d3ddb4a0eac4ce
> > Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net <mailto:
> sandeen@sandeen.net>>
> > Date: Tue Aug 18 17:53:17 2015 +1000
> >
> > mkfs.xfs: fix ftype-vs-crc option combination testing
> >
> > with this patch, it is broken again:
> >
> > # mkfs/mkfs.xfs -m crc=0 -n ftype=1 -dfile,name=fsfile,size=16g
> > <success>
> > # mkfs/mkfs.xfs -n ftype=1 -m crc=0 -dfile,name=fsfile,size=16g
> > cannot specify both crc and ftype
> > Usage: mkfs.xfs
> > ...
> >
> > ​Because the patch is much older than your fix, and at the time it
> > was created, it is possible that there wasn't any such check... I
> > would call it the risk of necromancy. :-)​
>
> Most likely a forward-port or merge error I think.
>
> > Anyway, I already fixed this issue in this cycle, and added the the
> > ftype, crc order into a test checking for options sanity. Just I
> > didn't submitted the change yet.
>
> Ok, so it is fixed in your new version of this patch?
>

​Yes.
​

>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -1879,23 +1988,25 @@ _("32 bit Project IDs always enabled on
> CRC enabled filesytems\n"));
> > > } else {
> > > /*
> > > * The kernel doesn't currently support
> crc=0,finobt=1
> > > - * filesystems. If crcs are not enabled and the user
> has
> > > - * explicitly turned them off then silently turn
> them off
> > > - * to avoid an unnecessary warning. If the user
> explicitly
> > > - * tried to use crc=0,finobt=1, then issue a warning
> before
> > > - * turning them off.
> > > + * filesystems. If crcs are not enabled and the user
> has not
> > > + * explicitly turned finobt on, then silently turn
> it off to
> > > + * avoid an unnecessary warning. If the user
> explicitly tried
> > > + * to use crc=0,finobt=1, then issue a warning
> before turning
> > > + * them off.
> > > */
> > > - if (finobt && finobtflag) {
> > > - fprintf(stderr,
> > > -_("warning: finobt not supported without CRC support,
> disabled.\n"));
> > > + if (sb_feat.finobt){
> > > + if (sb_feat.finobtflag) {
> > > + fprintf(stderr,
> > > + _("warning: finobt not supported without CRC support,
> disabled.\n"));
> > > + }
> > > + sb_feat.finobt = 0;
> >
> > like I mentioned, just this, I think (assuming we like the silent
> turning
> > off, but that would be a different patch):
> >
> >
> > ​Merging the conditions is indeed cleaner.
> >
> > And I will change it to failure, if the conflicting options are given
> > explicitly. Just a small patch adding "usage();" and removing
> > "warning"...​
>
> Ok, so for this patch, nothing but the mechanical change matching all the
> others,
> right? If there is any change in behavior to be done, that should be a
> different patch.
>

​Exactly.
​

>
> -Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>

--
Jan Tulak
jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9247 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]