Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: Use xfs_extnum_t instead of basic data types

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/21/22 6:04 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 05:23:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 6/21/22 1:50 AM, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>>> xfs_extnum_t is the type to use to declare variables whose values have been
>>> obtained from per-inode extent counters. This commit replaces using basic
>>> types (e.g. uint64_t) with xfs_extnum_t when declaring such variables.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks Chandan - I had rolled something like this into the merge of kernel
>> "xfs: Use xfs_extnum_t instead of basic data types"
>> because it seemed like it should maybe all be done at once.
>>
>> And the tree Dave has already had (some of) these type changes in db/ and
>> repair/dinode.c as part of that patch.
>>
>> On top of that, I added a lot more of these conversions, i.e. to
>> bmap(), bmap_one_extent(), and make_bbmap() in db/bmap.c, 
>> process_bmbt_reclist() in db/check.c, fa_cfileoffd() and
>> fa_dfiloffd() in db/faddr.c ... perhaps I should send you my net diff
>> on top of the tree dchinner assembled, and you can see what you think?
> 
> Just merge what we've already got, then do an audit to check for
> anything that is missing and then commit them.

I've already got the additional updates folded into what I have staged, though.
But I can also push what /I've/ got, and do an audit to fix stuff later, too,
I suppose.

>> But at the highest level, does it make more sense to convert everything
>> in the utilities at the same time as "xfs: Use xfs_extnum_t instead of
>> basic data types" is applied to xfsprogs libxfs/ or would separate patches
>> be better?
> 
> So long as it is converted before the release point it doesn't
> matter. We don't have extent counts of > 2*32 out in the wild yet,
> so as long as the conversions are all sorted by the time 5.19 is
> done then it just doesn't matter how many commits it takes because
> users won't be using the dev tree to repair filesystems with extent
> counts that could overflow a 32 bit counter....

Yeah, that's fair.

Thanks,
-Eric

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux