xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:39 -0500
Cc: "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <523A0AF0.3000507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52322B67.80305@xxxxxxxxxx> <523A0086.1080000@xxxxxxx> <523A0AF0.3000507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.

Level 5 would be a depth of 6.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
...
I think the current code is correct.

So confused.  :/  (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?)

-Eric


Well, I am frequently noted as being permanently confused!

I was referring to the kernel use of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH. All the
comparison indicate that having a value of 1 to XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH as
being okay.

When it accesses the xfs_da_state_blk_t blk[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH],
it decrements the index first there is no blk[] entry for a leaf that
is why it does not need another entry.

I need to study this more.

--Mark.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>