That does make sense. May I request, then, using UUID_SIZE instead of 16? Perhaps with a compile-time assertion that UUID_SIZE has not change from 16?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:10 AM Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/2/20 4:53 PM, John Dorminy wrote:
> I'm worried about hardcoding uuid members as u8[16].
>
> May I ask why you're not using uuid_t to define it in the on-disk
> structure? It would save the casting of the uuid members to (uuid_t *)
> every time you use a uuid.h function.
>
> Possibly it is customary to use only raw datatypes on disk rather than
> opaque types like uuid_t, I'm not sure. But in that case, perhaps using
> the named constant UUID_SIZE instead of 16 would make the meaning clearer?
>
I prefer to use absolute types (like __u8) when describing the on-disk
format.
When using opaque types like uuid_t there always is the risk that the
internal representation will change, leading to an involuntary change of
the on-disk format structure and subsequent compability issues.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
