On 3/15/17 11:00 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Checks are modified to work with cross-section conflicts (data, metada, log, ...).
More information in the changelog please; this doesn't
tell us a whole lot about what this is actually doing.
> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> index 7e0a4159..0877c196 100644
> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> @@ -744,6 +744,9 @@ struct opt_params {
> },
> };
>
> +static void conflict_struct(struct opt_params *opt, struct subopt_param *subopt,
weird tabs there
> + struct subopt_conflict *conflict);
"conflict_struct" seems like a variable name, not a function name. :)
What does this function actually do?
> +
> #define TERABYTES(count, blog) ((__uint64_t)(count) << (40 - (blog)))
> #define GIGABYTES(count, blog) ((__uint64_t)(count) << (30 - (blog)))
> #define MEGABYTES(count, blog) ((__uint64_t)(count) << (20 - (blog)))
> @@ -1351,10 +1354,9 @@ check_opt(
> break;
> if (conflict_opt.test_values)
> break;
> - if (opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> - opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) {
> - conflict(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts,
> - conflict_opt.subopt, index);
> + if (opts[conflict_opt.opt].subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> + opts[conflict_opt.opt].subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) {
> + conflict_struct(opt, sp, &conflict_opt);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -1379,13 +1381,12 @@ check_opt_value(
> break;
> if (!conflict_opt.test_values)
> break;
> - if ((opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> - opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) &&
> - opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].value
> + if ((opts[conflict_opt.opt].subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> + opts[conflict_opt.opt].subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) &&
> + opts[conflict_opt.opt].subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].value
> == conflict_opt.invalid_value &&
> value == conflict_opt.at_value) {
> - conflict(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts,
> - conflict_opt.subopt, index);
> + conflict_struct(opt, sp, &conflict_opt);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -3586,12 +3587,36 @@ conflict(
> char *tab[],
> int oldidx,
> int newidx)
> +
that newline should not be here ...
> {
> fprintf(stderr, _("Cannot specify both -%c %s and -%c %s\n"),
> opt, tab[oldidx], opt, tab[newidx]);
> usage();
> }
A comment about what this function actually /does/ would be good.
All it really does is printf, I guess - so a function name more
like show_conflict() might make more sense? conflict_struct just
isn't a good descriptive name.
> +static void
> +conflict_struct(
> + struct opt_params *opt,
> + struct subopt_param *subopt,
> + struct subopt_conflict *conflict)
> +{
> + if(conflict->message) {
> + fprintf(stderr, _("Cannot specify both -%c %s and -%c %s: %s\n"),
> + opt->name,
> + opt->subopts[subopt->index],
> + opts[conflict->opt].name,
> + opts[conflict->opt].subopts[conflict->subopt],
> + _(conflict->message));
> + } else {
> + fprintf(stderr, _("Cannot specify both -%c %s and -%c %s\n"),
> + opt->name,
> + opt->subopts[subopt->index],
> + opts[conflict->opt].name,
> + opts[conflict->opt].subopts[conflict->subopt]);
> + }
I wonder if this can be done w/o the cut and paste?
> + usage();
> +}
> +
>
> static void
> illegal(
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
