On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 10:55:16AM -0800, Christopher Siden wrote:
> http://code.delphix.com/illumos-4370/index.html
>
> Work by Max Grossman. See bug and updates to zpool-features(5) manpage
> in diff for details.
Keep in mind that I'm not very familiar with the code... with that said, the
feature refcount cache isn't mentioned in either bug. Is it significant to
get mentioned? Does it deserve a separate bug id? Similarly, the
enabled_txg & hole_birth features aren't mentioned in the bugs.
zfs_znode.c: ASSERT0() got replaced with VERIFY0(). Do we really want to
panic when the return is non-zero on non-debug builds? I suppose, this one
has been explicitly listed in the bug.
zvol.c: the check used to return on NULL bp. Now, a NULL bp will panic the
box. (Are we guaranteed a non-null bp?) There were other instances of !=
NULL check removed (dmu_send.c, dmu_diff.c, bptree.c, zdb.c).
dsl_dataset.c: was the ASSERT useless?
zfeature_common.c: zfeature_depends_on is missing a newline before {
Trivial nits related to coding style (I don't know what the prefered openzfs
way is so I'm pointing out inconsistencies):
zfeature.c: feature_get_enabled_txg() has useless {} in the if-statement
spa_misc.c: the for-loop in spa_add() has useless {}
dbuf.c: dbuf_write_ready() has useless {} near line 2491
zhack.c: line 280 has useless {}
Jeff.
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> developer mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
--
Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a
mousetrap.
- Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________
developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
