xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: deduplicate xlog_do_recovery_pass()

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: deduplicate xlog_do_recovery_pass()
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:12:51 +1000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <53F57C8F.6060909@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53F5651C.8030206@xxxxxxxxxx> <53F57758.9070007@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140821044915.GX20518@dastard> <53F57C8F.6060909@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:58:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 8/20/14, 11:49 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:36:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 8/20/14, 10:18 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> In xlog_do_recovery_pass(), there are 2 distinct cases:
> >>> non-wrapped and wrapped log recovery.
> >>>
> >>> If we find a wrapped log, we recover around the end
> >>> of the log, and then handle the rest of recovery
> >>> exactly as in the non-wrapped case - using exactly the same
> >>> (duplicated) code.
> >>>
> >>> Rather than having the same code in both cases, we can
> >>> get the wrapped portion out of the way first if needed,
> >>> and then recover the non-wrapped portion of the log.
> >>>
> >>> There should be no functional change here, just code
> >>> reorganization & deduplication.
> >>>
> >>> The patch looks a bit bigger than it really is; the last
> >>> hunk is whitespace changes (un-indenting).
> >>>
> >>> Tested with xfstests "check -g log" on a stock configuration.
> >>
> >> which didn't actually hit any log wraps.  Does xfstests
> >> really not cover wrapped log recovery?  anyway, something like this
> >> on a small log:
> > 
> > xfs/016
> 
> AFAICT that doesn't ever run recovery...

It does:

loop 20 times {

        mount
        <do stuff>
        unmount

        dump and process log
}

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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