On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:47:08PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> One thing I noticed with this check_field() macro is that it doesn't
> actually detect the case if the size of a field is changed. This hit
> me when I was making a cleanup to the large journal patch which renamed
> s_jnl_blocks[15] to s_jnl_size_lo and s_jnl_blocks[16] to s_jnl_size_hi
> for clarity. The tst_super_size test passed just fine, but the e2fsck
> test scripts failed in weird and wonderful ways.
>
> A better solution might be to explicitly pass the expected field size
> instead of getting both the size and offset from the structure itself.
> Since these structures change very rarely it isn't much maintenance,
> but it would be lousy if code was released that had some incorrect
> field offset because someone increased or decreased an earlier field
> without thinking enough, and those fields weren't used in normal tests.
>
> I can submit a patch if you are interested.
Good point. Yes, I agree it would be worth while to do this.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
