On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:39:22AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:09:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > I had a look before I submitted this patch and I didn't find anything. > > Now that I'm looking again, AGI buffers probably need a similar treatment. > > Superblock buffers are already checked against fixed number so those don't > > have a problem. Dquot buffers should be fine as well because those don't > > have a checksum and other unlogged stuff. And I didn't find any other > > structures in the log that would have the problem (please point me if I > > missed something). > > > > Regarding how to fix this cleanly - offsetof() seems like a reasonably > > clean way to me. If you prefer to define number of bytes each buffer type > > has to have in the log, I can do that as well. Or I could define > > alternative structures only containing fields we need in the log so that we > > can print info but this all seems like an additional complexity with > > disputable gain... > > I've taken a bit of a closer log (OMG, what a mess logprint is..), and > it seems at least in this are the AGF and AGI are affected of the struct > growth in v4. Yes, logprint is a steaming pile. At some point I'll properly abstract the kernel side log recovery code and share that with userspace and then convert logprint to use that.... > It seems like in this specific case using your offsetoff trick is > fine, it just needs a good comment explaining it. I added this: /* * The addition of spare space and the non-logged CRC format * fields to the AGF mean that the size that is logged is almost * always going to be smaller than the structure itself. Hence * we need to make sure that the buffer contains all the data we * want to print rather than just check against the structure * size. */ Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
