On 4/12/21 10:48, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:29:06PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Below are the results of running xfstests for "all" with the following
>>> configuration in local.config:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Other tests might need to be run in order to verify everything is working
>>> as expected. For such tests, the intervention of the maintainers might be
>>> needed.
>>
>> This is a little weird for a commit log. If you want to show results
>> this would be something that goes into a cover letter.
>
> Agreed, please don't post fstests output in the commit message.
OK. I've got it.
>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Calculates the size of structure xfs_efi_log_format followed by an
>>> + * array of n number of efi_extents elements.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline size_t
>>> +sizeof_efi_log_format(size_t n)
>>> +{
>>> + return struct_size((struct xfs_efi_log_format *)0, efi_extents, n);
>>
>> These helpers are completely silly. Just keep the existing open code
>> version using sizeof with the one-off removed.
>
> A couple of revisions ago I specifically asked Gustavo to create these
> 'silly' sizeof helpers to clean up...
>
>>> - (sizeof(struct xfs_efd_log_item) +
>>> - (XFS_EFD_MAX_FAST_EXTENTS - 1) *
>>> - sizeof(struct xfs_extent)),
>>> - 0, 0, NULL);
>>> + struct_size((struct xfs_efd_log_item
>>> *)0,
>>> + efd_format.efd_extents,
>>> + XFS_EFD_MAX_FAST_EXTENTS),
>
> ...these even uglier multiline statements. I was also going to ask for
> these kmem cache users to get cleaned up. I'd much rather look at:
>
> xfs_efi_zone = kmem_cache_create("xfs_efi_item",
> sizeof_xfs_efi(XFS_EFI_MAX_FAST_EXTENTS), 0);
> if (!xfs_efi_zone)
> goto the_drop_zone;
>
> even if it means another static inline.
Yep; I agree[1].
Thanks
--
Gustavo
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
