On 9/22/22 07:21, Kusiak, Mateusz wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 17:03, Coly Li wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2022年8月18日 22:56，Mateusz Kusiak <mateusz.kusiak@xxxxxxxxx> 写道：
>>>
>>> It prepares update_super1 for change context->update to enum.
>>> Change if else statements into switch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Kusiak <mateusz.kusiak@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> super1.c | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/super1.c b/super1.c
>>> index 71af860c..6c81c1b9 100644
>>> --- a/super1.c
>>> +++ b/super1.c
>>> @@ -1212,30 +1212,53 @@ static int update_super1(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
>>> int rv = 0;
>>> struct mdp_superblock_1 *sb = st->sb;
>>> bitmap_super_t *bms = (bitmap_super_t*)(((char*)sb) + MAX_SB_SIZE);
>>> + enum update_opt update_enum = map_name(update_options, update);
>>>
>>> - if (strcmp(update, "homehost") == 0 &&
>>> - homehost) {
>>> - /* Note that 'homehost' is special as it is really
>>> + if (update_enum == UOPT_HOMEHOST && homehost) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Note that 'homehost' is special as it is really
>>> * a "name" update.
>>> */
>>> char *c;
>>> - update = "name";
>>> + update_enum = UOPT_NAME;
>>> c = strchr(sb->set_name, ':');
>>> if (c)
>>> - strncpy(info->name, c+1, 31 - (c-sb->set_name));
>>> + snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "%s", c+1);
>>> else
>>> - strncpy(info->name, sb->set_name, 32);
>>> - info->name[32] = 0;
>>> + snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "%s", sb->set_name);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (strcmp(update, "force-one")==0) {
>>> + switch (update_enum) {
>>> + case UOPT_NAME:
>>> + if (!info->name[0])
>>> + snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "%d", info->array.md_minor);
>>> + memset(sb->set_name, 0, sizeof(sb->set_name));
>>> + int namelen;
>>> +
>>
>> The above variable ’namelen’ might be declared at beginning of this code block.
>
> I'll fix this in v2.
Hi Mateusz,
Did you ever post a v2 of this?
Thanks,
Jes
>>> + namelen = strnlen(homehost, MD_NAME_MAX) + 1 + strnlen(info->name, MD_NAME_MAX);
>>> + if (homehost &&
>>> + strchr(info->name, ':') == NULL &&
>>> + namelen < MD_NAME_MAX) {
>>> + strcpy(sb->set_name, homehost);
>>> + strcat(sb->set_name, ":");
>>> + strcat(sb->set_name, info->name);
>>> + } else {
>>> + namelen = min((int)strnlen(info->name, MD_NAME_MAX),
>>> + (int)sizeof(sb->set_name) - 1);
>>> + memcpy(sb->set_name, info->name, namelen);
>>> + memset(&sb->set_name[namelen], '\0',
>>> + sizeof(sb->set_name) - namelen);
>>> + }
>>> + break;
>>>
>> [snipped]
>>> @@ -1569,32 +1589,37 @@ static int update_super1(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
>>> }
>>> done:;
>>> }
>>> - } else if (strcmp(update, "_reshape_progress") == 0)
>>> + break;
>>> + case UOPT_SPEC__RESHAPE_PROGRESS:
>>> sb->reshape_position = __cpu_to_le64(info->reshape_progress);
>>> - else if (strcmp(update, "writemostly") == 0)
>>> - sb->devflags |= WriteMostly1;
>>> - else if (strcmp(update, "readwrite") == 0)
>>> + break;
>>> + case UOPT_SPEC_READWRITE:
>>> sb->devflags &= ~WriteMostly1;
>>> - else if (strcmp(update, "failfast") == 0)
>>
>> Writemostly-setting is removed here, is it on purpose ?
>
> No, thanks for noticing! I'll add this in v2.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Coly Li
