On 11/06/2012 12:08 PM, Roger Willcocks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:57 -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 11/06/12 08:50, Brian Foster wrote:
>>> Support minimum file size filtering in the eofblocks scan. The
>>> caller must set the XFS_EOF_FLAGS_MINFILESIZE flags bit and minimum
>>> file size value in bytes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h | 6 ++++--
>>> fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
>>> index 88eb1bc..082b743 100644
>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h
>>> @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ struct xfs_eofblocks {
>>> uid_t eof_uid;
>>> gid_t eof_gid;
>>> prid_t eof_prid;
>>> - __u32 pad[27];
>>> + __u64 eof_min_file_size;
>>> + __u32 pad[25]
>> ^^
>> Glad you bumped it to a unsigned 64 bit value.
>> Are __u64 items 64 bits? if so, the pad would be 24
>>
>
> It should probably be:
>
> __u32 pad_align_64;
> __u64 eof_min_file_size;
> __u32 pad[24];
>
Doh... forgot about alignment. Thanks for catching that guys.
The new pad_align field means I have to fix up the padded zero check as
well, which makes me wonder if I should reorder things now or actually
split more of the padding space into two (__u32/__u64, rather than
mistakenly converting to a __u32 like I've done here) fields to support
extending the data structure with fields of either size without having
to update the version. E.g., we end up with something like the following:
struct xfs_eofblocks {
__u32 version;
__u32 flags;
uid_t uid;
gid_t gid;
prid_t prid;
__u32 pad32[9];
__u64 minfilesize;
__u64 pad64[8];
};
Thoughts?
Brian
>
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
