On 04 Mar 2022 at 07:13, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:09:25PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> This commit replaces the macro XFS_DFORK_NEXTENTS() with the helper function
>> xfs_dfork_nextents(). As of this commit, xfs_dfork_nextents() returns the same
>> value as XFS_DFORK_NEXTENTS(). A future commit which extends inode's extent
>> counter fields will add more logic to this helper.
>>
>> This commit also replaces direct accesses to xfs_dinode->di_[a]nextents
>> with calls to xfs_dfork_nextents().
>>
>> No functional changes have been made.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h | 4 ----
>> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c | 10 ++++++----
>> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/xfs/scrub/inode.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>> 5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> Mostly good - a few consistency nits below.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> index d75e5b16da7e..e5654b578ec0 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> @@ -925,10 +925,6 @@ enum xfs_dinode_fmt {
>> ((w) == XFS_DATA_FORK ? \
>> (dip)->di_format : \
>> (dip)->di_aformat)
>> -#define XFS_DFORK_NEXTENTS(dip,w) \
>> - ((w) == XFS_DATA_FORK ? \
>> - be32_to_cpu((dip)->di_nextents) : \
>> - be16_to_cpu((dip)->di_anextents))
>>
>> /*
>> * For block and character special files the 32bit dev_t is stored at the
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> index 5c95a5428fc7..860d32816909 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> @@ -336,9 +336,11 @@ xfs_dinode_verify_fork(
>> struct xfs_mount *mp,
>> int whichfork)
>> {
>> - xfs_extnum_t di_nextents = XFS_DFORK_NEXTENTS(dip, whichfork);
>> + xfs_extnum_t di_nextents;
>> xfs_extnum_t max_extents;
>>
>> + di_nextents = xfs_dfork_nextents(dip, whichfork);
>
> Why separate the declaration and init? We normally move the init
> up to the declaration, not demote it like this....
>
Having init on the same line as the declaration would cause the line to cross
80 columns. Hence, I had moved init to occur after all the declaration
statements.
>> switch (XFS_DFORK_FORMAT(dip, whichfork)) {
>> case XFS_DINODE_FMT_LOCAL:
>> /*
>> @@ -405,6 +407,8 @@ xfs_dinode_verify(
>> uint16_t flags;
>> uint64_t flags2;
>> uint64_t di_size;
>> + xfs_extnum_t nextents;
>> + xfs_filblks_t nblocks;
>>
>> if (dip->di_magic != cpu_to_be16(XFS_DINODE_MAGIC))
>> return __this_address;
>> @@ -435,10 +439,12 @@ xfs_dinode_verify(
>> if ((S_ISLNK(mode) || S_ISDIR(mode)) && di_size == 0)
>> return __this_address;
>>
>> + nextents = xfs_dfork_data_extents(dip);
>> + nextents += xfs_dfork_attr_extents(dip);
>> + nblocks = be64_to_cpu(dip->di_nblocks);
>> +
>> /* Fork checks carried over from xfs_iformat_fork */
>> - if (mode &&
>> - be32_to_cpu(dip->di_nextents) + be16_to_cpu(dip->di_anextents) >
>> - be64_to_cpu(dip->di_nblocks))
>> + if (mode && nextents > nblocks)
>> return __this_address;
>
> The naextents count is needed later in this function. Rather than
> calculate it twice, I find the code reads a lot better if it is
> structured like this:
>
> nextents = xfs_dfork_data_extents(dip);
> naextents = xfs_dfork_attr_extents(dip);
> nblocks = be64_to_cpu(dip->di_nblocks);
>
> if (mode && nextents + naextents > nblocks)
> return __this_address;
> .....
>
>>
>> if (mode && XFS_DFORK_BOFF(dip) > mp->m_sb.sb_inodesize)
>> @@ -495,7 +501,7 @@ xfs_dinode_verify(
>> default:
>> return __this_address;
>> }
>> - if (dip->di_anextents)
>> + if (xfs_dfork_attr_extents(dip))
>> return __this_address;
>> }
>
> And then just check naextents here, too?
>
Ok. I will apply this suggestion.
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
>> index a17c4d87520a..829739e249b6 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ xfs_iformat_extents(
>> struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
>> struct xfs_ifork *ifp = XFS_IFORK_PTR(ip, whichfork);
>> int state = xfs_bmap_fork_to_state(whichfork);
>> - xfs_extnum_t nex = XFS_DFORK_NEXTENTS(dip, whichfork);
>> + xfs_extnum_t nex = xfs_dfork_nextents(dip, whichfork);
>
> I'll point out declaration with init as I mentioned earlier...
>
>> int size = nex * sizeof(xfs_bmbt_rec_t);
>> struct xfs_iext_cursor icur;
>> struct xfs_bmbt_rec *dp;
>> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ xfs_iformat_data_fork(
>> * depend on it.
>> */
>> ip->i_df.if_format = dip->di_format;
>> - ip->i_df.if_nextents = be32_to_cpu(dip->di_nextents);
>> + ip->i_df.if_nextents = xfs_dfork_data_extents(dip);
>>
>> switch (inode->i_mode & S_IFMT) {
>> case S_IFIFO:
>> @@ -295,14 +295,16 @@ xfs_iformat_attr_fork(
>> struct xfs_inode *ip,
>> struct xfs_dinode *dip)
>> {
>> + xfs_extnum_t naextents;
>> int error = 0;
>>
>> + naextents = xfs_dfork_attr_extents(dip);
>> +
>
> .... and point it out again because otherwise this looks
> inconsistent.
>
Yes, this initialization should have been included as part of the declaration
since it won't violate the 80-column guideline.
>> struct xfs_ifork *xfs_iext_state_to_fork(struct xfs_inode *ip, int state);
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/inode.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/inode.c
>> index 87925761e174..edad5307e430 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/inode.c
>> @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ xchk_dinode(
>> unsigned long long isize;
>> uint64_t flags2;
>> xfs_extnum_t nextents;
>> + xfs_extnum_t naextents;
>> prid_t prid;
>> uint16_t flags;
>> uint16_t mode;
>> @@ -391,7 +392,7 @@ xchk_dinode(
>> xchk_inode_extsize(sc, dip, ino, mode, flags);
>>
>> /* di_nextents */
>> - nextents = be32_to_cpu(dip->di_nextents);
>> + nextents = xfs_dfork_data_extents(dip);
>> fork_recs = XFS_DFORK_DSIZE(dip, mp) / sizeof(struct xfs_bmbt_rec);
>> switch (dip->di_format) {
>> case XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS:
>> @@ -408,10 +409,12 @@ xchk_dinode(
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + naextents = xfs_dfork_attr_extents(dip);
>
> Initialise the two extent counts in the same place - they are both
> first used only a handful of lines apart.
>
Ok.
--
chandan
