Re: osd_req_encode_op() breakage?

[Alex Elder <elder@dreamhost.com>]

I got dropped off the kernel.org lists for a bit and didn't see
this at first.  I don't know whether Sage responded to you or
not.  I'm getting back to you, just to be sure.

 > Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:34:20 +0100
 > From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 > To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
 > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
 > Subject: osd_req_encode_op() breakage?
 >
 > static void osd_req_encode_op(struct ceph_osd_request *req,
 >                               struct ceph_osd_op *dst,
 >                               struct ceph_osd_req_op *src)
 > {
 >         dst->op = cpu_to_le16(src->op);
 >
 >         switch (dst->op) {
 >         case CEPH_OSD_OP_READ:
 >         case CEPH_OSD_OP_WRITE:
 >
 > is an interesting thing to say, seeing that CEPH_OSD_OP_READ et.al. are
 > all host-endian...  Should that be "switch (src->op)" instead?

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

We have obviously not done endianness checks in this code for
some time.

I will commit a fix and credit you for it.  I'll also make sure
we are doing proper testing for this sort of thing on a regular
basis.

					-Alex

 >  AFAICS, that sucker had appeared in that form back in
 > commit 68b4476b0bc13fef18266b4140309a30e86739d2
 > Author: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@hq.newdream.net>
 > Date:   Tue Apr 6 15:01:27 2010 -0700
 >
 >     ceph: messenger and osdc changes for rbd
 >
 > and it seems to be broken on big-endian hosts.  Doesn't look like a 
misspelled
 > le16_to_cpu() either, since dst->op ends up going on the wire...
 >
 > I'm really mystified by that - it looks like it must've shown up 
immediately
 > on big-endian hosts; it's not like it was an obscure codepath, after 
all...
 > Comments?