On 11/2/12 8:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> I've tested this by a simple test such as creating one
>> file on an selinux box, so that data+attr is set, and
>> logprinting; I've also tested by running logprint after
>> subsequent xfstest runs (although we hit other bugs that
>> way).
>
> Can you add this test to xfstests, please?
Yeah that should be easy enough.
>> +
>> + if (f->ilf_fields & (XFS_ILOG_DEV | XFS_ILOG_UUID)) {
>> + switch (f->ilf_fields & (XFS_ILOG_DEV | XFS_ILOG_UUID)) {
>> + case XFS_ILOG_DEV:
>> + printf(_("DEV inode: no extra region\n"));
>
> The if here looks odd, I think you should follow the style with
> a switch on a masked value as it's done in xlog_recover_inode_pass2()
> in the kernel.
Hm TBH I'm not sure why I left that if in there.
For the DFORK/AFORK case I think the if made sense, but not for
the DEV/UUID case I think. I'll take another look.
> I also reall hate the indentation in this function, can you thrown in
> a preparatory patch to change it to the normal one?
to 8-char tabs? Ok
-Eric
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
