xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Is jdm_delete_filehandle part of a public API?

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Is jdm_delete_filehandle part of a public API?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:18:57 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <53D7FE32.3080807@xxxxxxx>
References: <53D7DA7F.2040706@xxxxxxxxxx> <53D7E56C.8020103@xxxxxxx> <53D7FE32.3080807@xxxxxxx>
On 7/29/14, 3:04 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 07/29/14 13:18, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 07/29/14 12:31, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> I was cleaning up xfsprogs to plug some leaks, and wanted to use
>>> jdm_delete_filehandle(). I noticed that it has an "hlen" argument which
>>> is unused.
>>>
>>> Can we remove that, or is this part of a public API? It's not in any
>>> manpage (or even called anywhere in xfsprogs/xfstests/xfsdump/dmapi)
>>> but it is in a public header...
>>>
>>> anyone know?
>>>
>>> If needed I guess I can just call it with hlen==0, but that seems odd.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Eric
>>
>> The first thing that comes to mind is maybe they trying to distinguish
>> between a fshandle or handle. Or they we trying to be consistent with
>> the allocation calls.
>>
>> The libhandle free_handle has the same calling parameters. It also does
>> nothing with the length. That we cannot change without breaking existing
>> code.
>>
>> I will look/ask around.
>>
>> --Mark.
> 
> Looks like the code is pretty sloppy with freeing the handles.

yeah, that's what I was going to fix :)

> Best guess is jdm_delete_filehandle() and free_handle are trying to
> keep the API similar to DMAPI. The DMAPI handle free routine,
> dm_handle_free(), also has a second length parameter that is not used
> in the library.
> 
> The code example that I saw are similar to the use in xfsdump, where
> the length used in the free comes from the handle creation/conversion
> routine.

yup but I don't think jdm_getfshandle has anything similar does it?
 
> Since the xfsprogs do not open handles with calls that provide a
> length. How about FSHANDLE_SZ and FILEHANDLE_SZ depending on if it is
> a xfs_fshandle or xfs_handle?

*shrug* it's not used anyway - I'm not sure why we'd need to invent a
macro to pass in only to have it ignored.  Is there any advantage to that?


-Eric

> 
> --Mark.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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