On 28 Sep 2021 at 09:34, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:46:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:36:42PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > This commit renames extent counter fields in "struct xfs_dinode" and "struct
>> > xfs_log_dinode" based on the width of the fields. As of this commit, the
>> > 32-bit field will be used to count data fork extents and the 16-bit field will
>> > be used to count attr fork extents.
>> >
>> > This change is done to enable a future commit to introduce a new 64-bit extent
>> > counter field.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h | 8 ++++----
>> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 4 ++--
>> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_log_format.h | 4 ++--
>> > fs/xfs/scrub/inode_repair.c | 4 ++--
>> > fs/xfs/scrub/trace.h | 14 +++++++-------
>> > fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c | 4 ++--
>> > fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item_recover.c | 8 ++++----
>> > 7 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> > index dba868f2c3e3..87c927d912f6 100644
>> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> > @@ -802,8 +802,8 @@ typedef struct xfs_dinode {
>> > __be64 di_size; /* number of bytes in file */
>> > __be64 di_nblocks; /* # of direct & btree blocks used */
>> > __be32 di_extsize; /* basic/minimum extent size for file */
>> > - __be32 di_nextents; /* number of extents in data fork */
>> > - __be16 di_anextents; /* number of extents in attribute fork*/
>> > + __be32 di_nextents32; /* number of extents in data fork */
>> > + __be16 di_nextents16; /* number of extents in attribute fork*/
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Having the same field in the inode hold the extent count
>> for different inode forks based on a bit in the superblock means the
>> on-disk inode format is not self describing. i.e. we can't decode
>> the on-disk contents of an inode correctly without knowing whether a
>> specific feature bit is set in the superblock or not.
>
> Hmmmm - I just realised that there is an inode flag that indicates
> the format is different. It's jsut that most of the code doing
> conditional behaviour is using the superblock flag, not the inode
> flag as the conditional.
>
> So it is self describing, but I still don't like the way the same
> field is used for the different forks. It just feels like we are
> placing a landmine that we are going to forget about and step
> on in the future....
>
Sorry, I missed this response from you.
I agree with your suggestion. I will use the inode version number to help in
deciding which extent counter fields are valid for a specific inode.
--
chandan
