On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 06:51:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:49:31PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > +int ext2fs_process_dir_inline_data(ext2_filsys fs,
> > + char *buf,
> > + unsigned int buf_len,
> > + e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt,
> > + struct ext2_inode_large *inode,
> > + void *priv_data)
> > +{
>
> It looks like there is a lot of code in this function which is in
> common with ext2fs_process_dir_block(), so I'd suggest refactoring out
> the common code to reduce duplication. This will reduce code size,
> and more importantly, improve maintenance of the code.
>
> > +errcode_t ext2fs_inline_data_iterate(ext2_filsys fs,
> > + ext2_ino_t ino,
> > + int flags,
> > + char *block_buf,
> > + int (*func)(ext2_filsys fs,
> > + char *buf,
> > + unsigned int buf_len,
> > + e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt,
> > + struct ext2_inode_large *inode,
> > + void *priv_data),
> > + void *priv_data)
>
> This function is misnamed, which worries me a little. First of all,
> it only makes sense when called on directories, so some name that
> indicates that it is meant to iterate over directories is a good idea.
> so some name such as ext2fs_process_inline_data_dir might be a better
> choice.
Yes, Darrick has pointed it out. I will fix it in next version.
>
> Secondly, it would a really good idea if there was a check to make
> sure it was passed an inode number which corresponds to an directory
> and that the inline data flag is set. A little paranoia is really
> healthy thing --- if we have some application bug where this function
> gets called accidentally on an inappropriate inode, we want to return
> a clean error code and not stumble on until something bad happens.
>
> > + dirent.inode = (__u32)*inode->i_block;
>
> I'd be much happier with:
>
> dirent.inode = inode->i_block[0];
>
> We shouldn't use casts unless absolutely necessary, and it's not
> necessary here.
>
> Also, I suspect we have some byte-swapping problems here. It doesn't
> appear there is any allownaces for byte swapping in the inline data
> patches. Currently, the ext2fs_read_inode() function will take care
> of byte swapping i_blocks[], so that will be OK here, but in the case
> of an inode with inline data, if we byte swap all of i_blocks[] then
> ext2fs_read_inline_data() will malfunction since the data bytes stored
> in the rest of i_blocks[] will be byte swapped. And that would be
> wrong.
>
> So I think what you will need to do is to avoid byte swapping the
> i_blocks[] array if the inode contains inline_data, and then in the
> case where this is a directory, we will need to byte swap i_block[0]
> if we are running on a big-endian system.
Yes, I have noticed that we only byte swap i_block[0], and the following
things don't be swapped. So I will fix it.
Thanks,
- Zheng
--
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
