On 11/21/12 03:54, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Do we have proper test coverage for the xfs_buf_item_format_segment
changes? Given that they change what gets written into the log I'd
prefer them separate from a big cleanup patch, and including test
coverage verifying everything works fine when hitting these corner
cases.
chunk_num = byte>> XFS_BLF_SHIFT;
word_num = chunk_num>> BIT_TO_WORD_SHIFT;
bit_num = chunk_num& (NBWORD - 1);
- wordp =&(bip->bli_format.blf_data_map[word_num]);
+ wordp =&(bip->bli_formats[0].blf_data_map[word_num]);
This change doesn't seem to be mentioned in the changelog?
@@ -644,8 +652,14 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
* If the buf item isn't tracking any data, free it, otherwise drop the
* reference we hold to it.
*/
- if (xfs_bitmap_empty(bip->bli_format.blf_data_map,
- bip->bli_format.blf_map_size))
+ empty = 1;
+ for (i = 0; i< bip->bli_format_count; i++)
+ if (!xfs_bitmap_empty(bip->bli_formats[i].blf_data_map,
+ bip->bli_formats[i].blf_map_size)) {
+ empty = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (empty)
xfs_buf_item_relse(bp);
This looks like a bug fix, not just a cleanup. Again I'd prefer this to
be a patch on its own, with a good description.
The bli_format -> bli_formats changes are bug fixes - the description
should say this is a bug fix not just a cleanup.
Eric's test 291 created a buffer with 4 mapped segments. It found most
of the issues in the buffer map and in the buffer log format. Dave
pointed out the xfs_bitmap_empty() error.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
