On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:17:12AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> The XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl allows users to invoke an EOFBLOCKS
> scan. The xfs_eofblocks structure is defined to support the command
> parameters (scan mode).
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 5 +++--
> fs/xfs/xfs_icache.h | 2 +-
> fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
> index c13fed8..5f48b3e 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
> @@ -339,6 +339,20 @@ typedef struct xfs_error_injection {
>
>
> /*
> + * Speculative preallocation trimming.
> + */
> +#define XFS_EOFBLOCKS_VERSION 1
> +struct xfs_eofblocks {
> + __u32 eof_version;
> + __u32 eof_flags;
> + unsigned char pad[12];
> +};
12 bytes of padding is a bit wierd at this point. It's
problematic for 32bit userspace on 64 bit kernels, in that the size
of the structure can end up different (i.e. 20 bytes on 32b, 24 bytes
on 64b) depending on the architectures natural alignment.
I can also see that adding multiple extra variables to the structure
are quite likely (e.g. per-ag control, start/end inode numbers,
etc), so 12 bytes of padding really isn't sufficient, IMO. I'd tend
to pad out to, say, 128 bytes rather than 32, just in case. i.e:
__u64 pad[15];
And then take away from this padding space as you add functioanlity
in fucture patches.
This extra padding means the version number won't need to increase
any time soon, as it will be a while before we run out of either
padding or flag space, instead of as soon as we add a new function
to the ioctl....
> +
> +/* eof_flags values */
> +#define XFS_EOF_FLAGS_SYNC 0x01 /* sync/wait mode scan */
I kind of prefer flags being defined by (1 << 0) style to keep
larger flag numbers concise, but that's not a big deal.
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> index 0e0232c..ad4352f 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> #include "xfs_inode_item.h"
> #include "xfs_export.h"
> #include "xfs_trace.h"
> +#include "xfs_icache.h"
>
> #include <linux/capability.h>
> #include <linux/dcache.h>
> @@ -1602,6 +1603,21 @@ xfs_file_ioctl(
> error = xfs_errortag_clearall(mp, 1);
> return -error;
>
> + case XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS: {
> + struct xfs_eofblocks eofb;
> + int flags;
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(&eofb, arg, sizeof(eofb)))
> + return -XFS_ERROR(EFAULT);
> +
> + if (eofb.eof_version != XFS_EOFBLOCKS_VERSION)
> + return -XFS_ERROR(EINVAL);
Checking that no unsupported flags are set here is necessary. Also,
checking the padding is zero is probably a good idea, as it will
force applications to zero the structure properly before being able
to use this interface properly....
> + flags = (eofb.eof_flags & XFS_EOF_FLAGS_SYNC) ? SYNC_WAIT : SYNC_TRYLOCK;
Line if a bit too long. However, would it be better to place this
inside xfs_icache_free_eofblocks()?
> + error = xfs_icache_free_eofblocks(mp, flags, &eofb);
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
