On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:43:18AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 06:29:26PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reorganize struct xchk_btree so that we can dynamically size the context
> > structure to fit the type of btree cursor that we have. This will
> > enable us to use memory more efficiently once we start adding very tall
> > btree types.
>
> So bs->levels[0].has_lastkey replaces bs->firstkey? Can you explain
> a bit more how this works for someone not too familiar with the scrub
> code.
For each record and key that the btree scrubber encounters, it needs to
know if it should call ->{recs,keys}_inorder to check the ordering of
each item in the btree block.
Hmm. Come to think of it, we could use "cur->bc_ptrs[level] > 0"
instead of tracking it separately. Ok, that'll become a separate
cleanup patch to reduce memory further. Good question!
> > +static inline size_t
> > +xchk_btree_sizeof(unsigned int levels)
> > +{
> > + return sizeof(struct xchk_btree) +
> > + (levels * sizeof(struct xchk_btree_levels));
>
> This should probably use struct_size().
Assuming it's ok with sending a typed null pointer into a macro:
return struct_size((struct xchk_btree *)NULL, levels, nr_levels);
Then ok.
--D
