| To: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] xfs: kill off l_sectbb_mask |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:21:21 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <201004162054.o3GKs54f025204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <201004162054.o3GKs54f025204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:54:05PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> - uint l_sectBBsize; /* sector size in BBs */
> - uint l_sectbb_mask; /* sector size (in BBs)
> - * alignment mask */
> + uint l_sectBBsize; /* sector size in BBs (2^n) */
The 2^n comment doesn't make too much sense to me.
But in general looks good, nice cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> @@ -128,14 +132,14 @@ xlog_align(
> int nbblks,
> xfs_buf_t *bp)
> {
> + xfs_daddr_t offset;
> xfs_caddr_t ptr;
>
> - if (log->l_sectBBsize == 1)
> - return XFS_BUF_PTR(bp);
> + offset = blk_no & ((xfs_daddr_t) log->l_sectBBsize - 1);
> + ptr = XFS_BUF_PTR(bp) + BBTOB(offset);
> +
> + ASSERT(ptr + BBTOB(nbblks) <= XFS_BUF_PTR(bp) + XFS_BUF_SIZE(bp));
And Dave's version of this assert definitively makes a lot more sense,
this is one while evolved from the previous one is rather ugly.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] xfs: record log sector size rather than log2(that), Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] xfs: kill off l_sectbb_mask, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] xfs: kill off l_sectbb_mask, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] xfs: kill off l_sectbb_mask, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |