| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 12 May 2016 18:31:03 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20160512232804.GC18496@dastard> |
| References: | <1463092513-5462-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ee586739-e804-8174-8497-cc8a992b9752@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20160512232804.GC18496@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 |
On 5/12/16 6:28 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> +
>>> > > + if (corrupt) {
>>> > > nowrite_ops.verify_write = xfs_dummy_verify;
>>> > > - iocur_top->bp->b_ops = &nowrite_ops;
>>> > > - dbprintf(_("Allowing write of corrupted data\n"));
>>> > > + dbprintf(_("Allowing write of corrupted data and bad
>>> > > CRC\n"));
>>> > > + } else {
>> >
>> > Maybe a helpful/redundant comment about /* invalid_data */ alongside }
>> > else { ?
> I though the dbprintf() documented it well enough? maybe move that
> to the top of each branch?
Oh, I suppose it does. By the time we returned early on !corrupt & !
invalid_data,
then tested explicitly for (corrupt), it requires a decent brain-stack to
remember what the } else { clause is for, IMHO.
But like I said, just a thought.
-Eric
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] db: limit AGFL bno array printing, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |