On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently the fiemap implementation of xfs_io doesn't support making ranged
> queries. This patch implements the '-r' parameter, taking up to 2 arguments -
> the starting offset and the length of the region to be queried. This also
> requires changing of the final hole range is calculated. Namely, it's now being
> done as [last_logical, logical addres of next extent] rather than being
> statically determined by [last_logical, filesize].
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V3:
> * Fixed a bug where incorrect extent index was shown if we didn't print a
> hole. This was due to statically returning 2 at the end of print_(plain|verbose)
> Now, the actual number of printed extents inside the 2 functions is used.
> This bug is visible only with the -r parameter
>
> * Fixed a bug where 1 additional extent would be printed. This was a result of
> the aforementioned bug fix, since now printing function can return 1 and still
> have printed an extent and no hole. This can happen when you use -r parameter,
> this is now fixed and a comment explaining it is put.
>
> * Reworked the handling of the new params by making them arguments to the
> -r parameter.
>
> V2:
> * Incorporated Daricks feedback - removed variables which weren't introduced
> until the next patch as a result the build with this patch was broken. This is
> fixed now
.....
> @@ -256,9 +269,12 @@ fiemap_f(
> int tot_w = 5; /* 5 since its just one number */
> int flg_w = 5;
> __u64 last_logical = 0;
> + size_t fsblocksize, fssectsize;
> struct stat st;
>
> - while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "aln:v")) != EOF) {
> + init_cvtnum(&fsblocksize, &fssectsize);
> +
> + while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "aln:vr")) != EOF) {
Ok, you're not telling gotopt that "-r" has parameters, so....
> switch (c) {
> case 'a':
> fiemap_flags |= FIEMAP_FLAG_XATTR;
> @@ -272,6 +288,50 @@ fiemap_f(
> case 'v':
> vflag++;
> break;
> + case 'r':
> + /* Parse the first option which is mandatory */
> + if (optind < argc && argv[optind][0] != '-') {
> + off64_t start_offset = cvtnum(fsblocksize,
> + fssectsize,
> + argv[optind]);
> + if (start_offset < 0) {
> + printf("non-numeric offset argument -- "
> + "%s\n", argv[optind]);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + last_logical = start_offset;
> + optind++;
> + } else {
> + fprintf(stderr, _("Invalid offset argument for"
> + " -r\n"));
> + exitcode = 1;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (optind < argc) {
> + /* first check if what follows doesn't begin
> + * with '-' which means it would be a param and
> + * not an argument
> + */
> + if (argv[optind][0] == '-') {
> + optind--;
> + break;
> +
> + }
> +
> + off64_t length = cvtnum(fsblocksize,
> + fssectsize,
> + argv[optind]);
> + if (length < 0) {
> + printf("non-numeric len argument --"
> + " %s\n", argv[optind]);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + len = length;
> + range_limit = true;
> + }
> + break;
.... this is pretty nasty because you're having to check if the next
option should be parsed by the main loop or not. This assumes that
getopt is giving us the options in the order they were presented on
the command line, which is not a good assumption to make as glibc
can mutate the order as it parses the listi of know options and
arguments.
Given that "-r" is the only option that has parameters, then this
can be massively simplified just by noting we've seen the rflag, and
leaving the non-arg parameter parsing to after the end of the loop.
i.e.:
case 'r':
range_limit = true;
break;
......
if (!range_limit) {
/* no extra parameters */
if (optind != argc)
usage();
} else if (optind != argc - 2) {
/* wrong number of parameters for rflag */
usage();
} else {
/* parse range variables */
offset = cvtnum(fsblocksize, fssectsize, argv[optind++]);
length = cvtnum(fsblocksize, fssectsize, argv[optind]);
if (offset < 0 || length < 0) {
/* invalid options */
usage();
}
}
>
> cur_extent += num_printed;
> last_logical = extent->fe_logical + extent->fe_length;
> + /* If num_printed > 0 then we dunno if we have printed
> + * a hole or an extent and a hole but we don't really
> + * care. Termination of the loop is still going to be
> + * correct
> + */
/*
* Please use the standard comment format.
*/
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
