Ping..
I think so, snap_id is defined and used as uint64_t in ceph, but here
static_cast may introduce bug, since two snap_id may get the same
prefix, then same key in snap_mapper.
diff --git a/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc b/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
index 315e2e2..27cc2b7 100644
--- a/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
+++ b/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
@@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ string SnapMapper::get_prefix(snapid_
t snap)
char buf[100];
int len = snprintf(
buf, sizeof(buf),
- "%.*X_", (int)(sizeof(snap)*2),
- static_cast<unsigned>(snap));
+ "%.*llX_", (int)(sizeof(snap)*2), snap);
2015-02-04 12:02 GMT+08:00 Ding Dinghua <dingdinghua85@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I think so, snap_id is defined and used as uint64_t in ceph, but here
> static_cast may introduce bug, since two snap_id may get the same
> prefix, then same key in snap_mapper.
>
> diff --git a/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc b/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
> index 315e2e2..27cc2b7 100644
> --- a/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
> +++ b/src/osd/SnapMapper.cc
> @@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ string SnapMapper::get_prefix(snapid_
> t snap)
> char buf[100];
> int len = snprintf(
> buf, sizeof(buf),
> - "%.*X_", (int)(sizeof(snap)*2),
> - static_cast<unsigned>(snap));
> + "%.*llX_", (int)(sizeof(snap)*2), snap);
>
> 2015-02-04 1:25 GMT+08:00 Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Should probably be cast to long unsigned with lX conversion specifier?
>> -Sam
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> It looks like snapid_t is a uint64_t, but snprintf expects an unsigned there.
>>> -Sam
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Ding Dinghua <dingdinghua85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all:
>>>>> I don't understand why SnapMapper::get_prefix static_cast snap
>>>>> to unsigned:
>>>>>
>>>>> string SnapMapper::get_prefix(snapid_t snap)
>>>>> {
>>>>> char buf[100];
>>>>> int len = snprintf(
>>>>> buf, sizeof(buf),
>>>>> "%.*X_", (int)(sizeof(snap)*2),
>>>>> static_cast<unsigned>(snap));
>>>>> return MAPPING_PREFIX + string(buf, len);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this limit snapshot count in pool to 2^32 -1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could anyone clarify ? Thanks
>>>>
>>>> I think the code base is a little confused about whether snaps should
>>>> be 32 or 64 bits in various places. :( That said, the size of unsigned
>>>> can vary across architectures, so this should probably be sized more
>>>> explicitly as whatever it's supposed to be on the disk...
>
>
>
> --
> Ding Dinghua
--
Ding Dinghua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
