| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/2 V2] xfs_logprint: Handle multiply-logged inode fields |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:01:32 -0400 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <5092A46A.8080909@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <5092A1DE.10609@xxxxxxxxxx> <5092A2B6.2000907@xxxxxxxxxx> <5092A46A.8080909@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
> I've tested this by a simple test such as creating one
> file on an selinux box, so that data+attr is set, and
> logprinting; I've also tested by running logprint after
> subsequent xfstest runs (although we hit other bugs that
> way).
Can you add this test to xfstests, please?
> +
> + if (f->ilf_fields & (XFS_ILOG_DEV | XFS_ILOG_UUID)) {
> + switch (f->ilf_fields & (XFS_ILOG_DEV | XFS_ILOG_UUID)) {
> + case XFS_ILOG_DEV:
> + printf(_("DEV inode: no extra region\n"));
The if here looks odd, I think you should follow the style with
a switch on a masked value as it's done in xlog_recover_inode_pass2()
in the kernel.
I also reall hate the indentation in this function, can you thrown in
a preparatory patch to change it to the normal one?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: silence GCC warning, Paul Bolle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs_logprint: Handle continued inode transactions, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 1/2 V2] xfs_logprint: Handle multiply-logged inode fields, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2 V2] xfs_logprint: Handle multiply-logged inode fields, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |