[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 01/14] ocfs2: Introduce ocfs2_xa_loc
Joel Becker
Joel.Becker at oracle.com
Thu Aug 27 02:28:49 PDT 2009
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:48:19PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> Joel Becker wrote:
> >+ u64 value_size = le64_to_cpu(entry->xe_value_size);
> >+
> >+ namevalue_size = OCFS2_XATTR_SIZE(entry->xe_name_len);
> >+ if (value_size > OCFS2_XATTR_INLINE_SIZE)
> >+ namevalue_size += OCFS2_XATTR_ROOT_SIZE;
> >+ else
> >+ namevalue_size += OCFS2_XATTR_SIZE(value_size);
> A minor issue. I see a similar part in the function in
> ocfs2_xa_block_wipe_namevalue, so can we create a inline function
> for it? maybe ocfs2_xe_name_value_size?
See patch 5 :-)
> >@@ -1376,7 +1586,14 @@ static void ocfs2_xattr_set_entry_local(struct inode *inode,
> > {
> > size_t name_len = strlen(xi->name);
> > int i;
> >+ struct ocfs2_xa_loc loc;
> >+ if (xs->xattr_bh == xs->inode_bh)
> >+ ocfs2_init_dinode_xa_loc(&loc, inode, xs->inode_bh,
> >+ xs->not_found ? NULL : xs->here);
> >+ else
> >+ ocfs2_init_xattr_block_xa_loc(&loc, xs->xattr_bh,
> >+ xs->not_found ? NULL : xs->here);
> > if (xi->value && xs->not_found) {
> > /* Insert the new xattr entry. */
> > le16_add_cpu(&xs->header->xh_count, 1);
> >@@ -1415,9 +1632,9 @@ static void ocfs2_xattr_set_entry_local(struct inode *inode,
> > xi->value_len);
> > return;
> > }
> >+
> > /* Remove the old name+value. */
> >- memmove(first_val + size, first_val, val - first_val);
> >- memset(first_val, 0, size);
> >+ ocfs2_xa_wipe_namevalue(&loc);
> > xs->here->xe_name_hash = 0;
> > xs->here->xe_name_offset = 0;
> > ocfs2_xattr_set_local(xs->here, 1);
> >@@ -1425,23 +1642,16 @@ static void ocfs2_xattr_set_entry_local(struct inode *inode,
> > min_offs += size;
> >- /* Adjust all value offsets. */
> >- last = xs->header->xh_entries;
> >- for (i = 0 ; i < le16_to_cpu(xs->header->xh_count); i++) {
> >- size_t o = le16_to_cpu(last->xe_name_offset);
> >-
> >- if (o < offs)
> >- last->xe_name_offset = cpu_to_le16(o + size);
> >- last += 1;
> >- }
> >-
> > if (!xi->value) {
> > /* Remove the old entry. */
> >- last -= 1;
> >+ i = le16_to_cpu(xs->header->xh_count);
> >+ i--;
> any reason why not "i = le16_to_cpu(xs->header->xh_count) - 1"?
No good one. I moved these couple lines around a bit, so I
probably was just adjusting.
> >+ last = &xs->header->xh_entries[i - 1];
> here is a bug. last should be "&xs->header->xh_entries[i]". In the
> old implementation, the above "for" loop ends with last =
> xh_entries[xh_count].
My brain wants to protest, but every time I walk the logic you
come out right. Maybe this used to be above the i-- or something.
Good catch.
Joel
--
"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always
remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don't win unless
you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
- Richard M. Nixon
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
More information about the Ocfs2-devel
mailing list