On 07/29/14 15:18, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 7/29/14, 3:04 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 07/29/14 13:18, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 07/29/14 12:31, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I was cleaning up xfsprogs to plug some leaks, and wanted to use
jdm_delete_filehandle(). I noticed that it has an "hlen" argument which
is unused.
Can we remove that, or is this part of a public API? It's not in any
manpage (or even called anywhere in xfsprogs/xfstests/xfsdump/dmapi)
but it is in a public header...
anyone know?
If needed I guess I can just call it with hlen==0, but that seems odd.
Thanks,
-Eric
The first thing that comes to mind is maybe they trying to distinguish
between a fshandle or handle. Or they we trying to be consistent with
the allocation calls.
The libhandle free_handle has the same calling parameters. It also does
nothing with the length. That we cannot change without breaking existing
code.
I will look/ask around.
--Mark.
Looks like the code is pretty sloppy with freeing the handles.
yeah, that's what I was going to fix :)
Best guess is jdm_delete_filehandle() and free_handle are trying to
keep the API similar to DMAPI. The DMAPI handle free routine,
dm_handle_free(), also has a second length parameter that is not used
in the library.
The code example that I saw are similar to the use in xfsdump, where
the length used in the free comes from the handle creation/conversion
routine.
yup but I don't think jdm_getfshandle has anything similar does it?
nope. Do you know why there is a jdm and a libhandle libs?
Since the xfsprogs do not open handles with calls that provide a
length. How about FSHANDLE_SZ and FILEHANDLE_SZ depending on if it is
a xfs_fshandle or xfs_handle?
*shrug* it's not used anyway - I'm not sure why we'd need to invent a
macro to pass in only to have it ignored. Is there any advantage to that?
never mind... handles are opaque and we should not be defining a size.
I did the grep and saw that the sizes were defined and thought they were
better than nothing. I did not not realize that the defines are are in
jdm.c and not a header file. In that case, nothing is better than adding
a define for an opaque item.
-Eric
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
