On 2/10/16 9:43 AM, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
>> I'd make __find_secondary_sb() take (sb, start, skip) i.e. send in
>> > this:
>> >
>>> > > + retval = __find_secondary_sb(rsb, agsize, agsize);
>>> > > + if (!retval) {
>>> > > + /*
>>> > > + * fallback: use minimum agsize for skipsize
>>> > > + */
>>> > > + retval = __find_secondary_sb(rsb, XFS_AG_MIN_BYTES, BSIZE);
>>> > > + }
>> >
>> > and the function is something like:
>> >
>> > static int
>> > __find_secondary_sb(
>> > xfs_sb_t *rsb,
>> > xfs_off_t start,
>> > xfs_off_t skip)
>> >
>> > {
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > for (done = 0, off = start; !done ; off += skip) {
>> > ...
>> > if (lseek64(x.dfd, off, SEEK_SET) != off)
>> > done = 1;
>> >
>> > if (!done && (read(x.dfd, sb, BSIZE)) <= 0)
>> > done = 1;
> But, bsize is used here:
> ...
> * check the buffer 512 bytes at a time since
> * we don't know how big the sectors really are.
> */
> for (i = 0; !done && i < bsize; i += BBSIZE) {
> ...
> so, don't we still need to populate bsize? Or does it make more
> sense to just use BBSIZE in the conditional, ala:
> for (i = 0; !done && i < BBSIZE; i += BBSIZE)
Oh, right, sorry. yes, keep the assignment:
if (!done && (bsize = read(x.dfd, sb, BSIZE)) <= 0) {
That handles a short read at the end; we ask for BSIZE, actually
read bsize, and then we need to iterate over what actually got read
(bsize).
BSIZE, bsize ... clear as mud. :(
-Eric
>> >
>> >
>> > because you really can't deduce both the starting point and the skip-ahead
>> > size from just one parameter.
> Agreed.
> Thanks for your thorough reviews :)
> Bill
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
