On 9/4/17 7:31 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:20:10 AM IST Dave Chinner wrote: >> Everyone who tries to modify mkfs quickly learns that it is a pile >> of spaghetti, the only difference in opinion is whether it is a >> steaming, cold or rotten pile. This patchset attempts to untangle >> the ball of pasta and turn it into a set of clear, obvious >> operations that lead to a filesystem being formatted correctly. >> >> The patch series is really in three parts, splitting the code up >> into roughly three modules. The first part introduces a mkfs >> parameters structure and factors the on-disk formatting code to use >> only information in that structure. The second part introduces a >> command line input structure and factors the input parsing to use >> it. This requires a bunch of temporary code to keep the rest of >> the code working. The third part is factoring the input validation >> and geometry calculation code to use the input structure and put >> the output into the mkfs parameter structure and to remove all the >> temporary support code. >> >> The result is three modules - input parsing, validation+calculations >> and formatting - with well defined data flow between them. This also >> paves the way to supporting config files to set defaults via a >> separate (new) module. The overall data flow now looks like this: >> >> Build defaults --\ >> ---> mkfs_default_params -> CLI -> mkfs_params >> config file -----/ >> >> It is not worth spending a lot of time reviewing the temporary code >> that is added - it gets removed before the end of the series. No >> attempt has been made to ensure that mkfs works 100% correctly after >> each patch is applied - the only guarantee is that it will build >> cleanly. It /should/ work if a bisect lands in the middle of the >> series, but trying to exhaustively test each patch is OK would take >> more effort than it is worth. As such, testing has only been >> performed on the whole series. >> >> The new output from mkfs to indicate where it has sourced the >> defaults from causes xfstests to have conniptions. This requires >> some updates to the mkfs output filters that are already in place >> but it is a fairly trivial update. Test xfs/191 has a couple of new >> failures, but that is because the new code now correctly parses >> things like agsize so that block and sector size based >> specifications work with default mkfs values. This will require test >> updates. >> >> Future work will be to split the xfs_mkfs.c file into a file per >> module (i.e. seperate files for CLI parsing, mkfs formating, >> validation+calculation and, finally, one for config file support), >> but otherwise the majority of the factoring work is now complete. >> >> Comments, flames, etc all welcome. > Hi Dave, > > I am trying to test the "mkfs refactor" patchset on a ppc64 machine. But "git > am ~/mkfs-xfs-rewrite/\[PATCH\ 03_42\]\ mkfs_introduce\ a\ structure\ to\ > hold\ CLI\ options.mbox" fails to apply cleanly on top of xfsprogs/master > (with patches 01 and 02 already applied) branch. Can you please let me know > the id of the topmost commit on which the "mkfs refactor" patches are applied? I think that 02c3e10 mkfs: add missing translation is the problem, sorry. -Eric -- 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
