On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:55:37PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:44:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48:53AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process. > > > Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > changes since v1: > > > - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian); > > > - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian); > > > - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian). > > > > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h | 3 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c > > > index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644 > > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c > > > @@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common( > > > } > > > } > > > > > > - if (sbp->sb_unit) { > > > - if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) || > > > - sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width || > > > - (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) { > > > - xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed"); > > > - return -EFSCORRUPTED; > > > - } > > > - } else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) { > > > + /* > > > + * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign) > > > + * would imply the image is corrupted. > > > + */ > > > + if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) { > > > > This can be simplified to drop the negations (!), right? > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > yet nope, honestly I don't think so, the reason is that sbp->sb_unit is > an integer here rather than a boolean, so negations cannot be > simplified and I think it's simpliest now... (some boolean algebra...) > Oh, right. So you'd actually need something like (!!sunit ^ hasdalign()) to avoid the bit operation. Brian > > > > > xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed"); > > ... > > > > + if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) { > > > + if (!silent) > > > + xfs_notice(mp, > > > +"stripe unit (%lld) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)", > > > + sunit, sectorsize); > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (sunit && !swidth) { > > > + if (!silent) > > > + xfs_notice(mp, > > > +"invalid stripe unit (%lld) and stripe width of 0", sunit); > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (!sunit && swidth) { > > > + if (!silent) > > > + xfs_notice(mp, > > > +"invalid stripe width (%lld) and stripe unit of 0", swidth); > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (sunit > swidth) { > > > + if (!silent) > > > + xfs_notice(mp, > > > +"stripe unit (%lld) is larger than the stripe width (%lld)", sunit, swidth); > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) { > > > > It might be good to use (or not) params consistently. I.e., the > > sectorsize check earlier in the function has similar logic structure but > > drops the params. > > Yeah, that is due to the line was copied from somewhere else... so... > Anyway, I can resend a quick fix for this if needed. Wait a sec > for some potential feedback... > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > > > > > Those nits aside: > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >
