On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:53:59AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:02:26AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 02:25:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Provide a way to calculate the highest hash value of a leaf1 block.
> > > This will be used by the directory scrubbing code to check the sanity
> > > of hashes in leaf1 directory blocks.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_node.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_node.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_node.c
> > > index bbd1238..15c1881 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_node.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_node.c
> > > @@ -524,6 +524,34 @@ xfs_dir2_free_hdr_check(
> > > #endif /* DEBUG */
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * Return the last hash value in the leaf1.
> > > + * Stale entries are ok.
> > > + */
> > > +xfs_dahash_t /* hash value */
> > > +xfs_dir2_leaf1_lasthash(
> > > + struct xfs_inode *dp,
> > > + struct xfs_buf *bp, /* leaf buffer */
> > > + int *count) /* count of entries in leaf */
> > > +{
> > > + struct xfs_dir2_leaf *leaf = bp->b_addr;
> > > + struct xfs_dir2_leaf_entry *ents;
> > > + struct xfs_dir3_icleaf_hdr leafhdr;
> > > +
> > > + dp->d_ops->leaf_hdr_from_disk(&leafhdr, leaf);
> > > +
> > > + ASSERT(leafhdr.magic == XFS_DIR2_LEAF1_MAGIC ||
> > > + leafhdr.magic == XFS_DIR3_LEAF1_MAGIC);
> > > +
> >
> > It looks like the assert is the only difference between this function
> > and xfs_dir2_leafn_lasthash(). It seems like overkill to me to duplicate
> > just for that. How about we fix up the assert to cover the additional
> > magics (and maybe rename _leafn_lasthash() to _leaf_lasthash() if
> > appropriate)?
> >
> > Actually, taking a closer look, ->leaf_hdr_from_disk() already asserts
> > on the appropriate LEAF1/LEAFN magic based on the callback that is
> > specified. ISTM that we could also just kill the _lasthash() assert.
>
> The ASSERTs in the _lasthash functions and in leaf_hdr_from_disk aren't
> testing quite the same things. The asserts in _dir2_leaf[1n]_lasthash
> check that we actually passed it a leaf1 or leafn block, respectively.
> The asserts in _dir[23]_leaf_hdr_from_disk check that we actually fed it
> a dir2 or dir3 leaf* block without caring whether it's leaf1 or leafn.
> That's why I didn't just get rid of the assert and rename the function
> xfs_dir2_leaf_lasthash().
>
Yeah, I'm aware they are not exactly equivalent. I was more thinking
that we still have some assert protection if something is blatantly
wrong (i.e., corruption, some non dir block, etc.). As it is, if the
_leaf1_lasthash() assert fails because we passed a leafn block to the
function, the solution presumably is to use the leafn function that
basically does the same thing (modulo the assert), right?
In other words, what's the value of asserting on the magics between two
functions that handle either format in the exact same way? If there is
value somewhere, it sounds like perhaps it's to the benefit of the
caller than for the helper itself (which is reasonable, I think, but
still doesn't justify the duplication IMO).
> I suppose we could just make a single parent function that takes the two
> magics it wants to see and have _dir2_leaf[1n]_lasthash call the parent
> function with the magic numbers they want to check. How does that
> sound?
>
Do I understand correctly that you mean an "internal" function that
receives the expected magic as a param (for the assert) and a couple
leaf[1|n]_lasthash() wrappers that pass the associated LEAF[1|N] magics?
If so, that sounds reasonable to me if you'd really prefer to keep the
isolated asserts. I'm more just trying to avoid the code duplication.
Brian
> --D
>
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > > + if (count)
> > > + *count = leafhdr.count;
> > > + if (!leafhdr.count)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + ents = dp->d_ops->leaf_ents_p(leaf);
> > > + return be32_to_cpu(ents[leafhdr.count - 1].hashval);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > * Return the last hash value in the leaf.
> > > * Stale entries are ok.
> > > */
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h
> > > index 576f2d2..c09bca1 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h
> > > @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ extern bool xfs_dir3_leaf_check_int(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_inode *dp,
> > > /* xfs_dir2_node.c */
> > > extern int xfs_dir2_leaf_to_node(struct xfs_da_args *args,
> > > struct xfs_buf *lbp);
> > > +extern xfs_dahash_t xfs_dir2_leaf1_lasthash(struct xfs_inode *dp,
> > > + struct xfs_buf *bp, int *count);
> > > extern xfs_dahash_t xfs_dir2_leafn_lasthash(struct xfs_inode *dp,
> > > struct xfs_buf *bp, int *count);
> > > extern int xfs_dir2_leafn_lookup_int(struct xfs_buf *bp,
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > --
> > 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
--
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
