Filipe David Borba Manana
2013-Jul-09 18:49 UTC
[PATCH 0/2] Remove duplicated and useless code in cmds-restore
The following patch series are just a cleanup for cmds-restore.c, removing some duplicated code and code that never gets executed. Filipe David Borba Manana (2): Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c Btrfs-progs: remove unneeded leaf checks in cmds-restore cmds-restore.c | 170 ++++++++++++-------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) -- 1.7.9.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Filipe David Borba Manana
2013-Jul-09 18:49 UTC
[PATCH 1/2] Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c
The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf()
function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf()
from ctree.c.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
---
cmds-restore.c | 62 +++++---------------------------------------------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-restore.c b/cmds-restore.c
index eca528d..ed4815a 100644
--- a/cmds-restore.c
+++ b/cmds-restore.c
@@ -148,58 +148,6 @@ static int decompress(char *inbuf, char *outbuf, u64
compress_len,
return -1;
}
-int next_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_path *path)
-{
- int slot;
- int level = 1;
- struct extent_buffer *c;
- struct extent_buffer *next = NULL;
-
- for (; level < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL; level++) {
- if (path->nodes[level])
- break;
- }
-
- if (level == BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL)
- return 1;
-
- slot = path->slots[level] + 1;
-
- while(level < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL) {
- if (!path->nodes[level])
- return 1;
-
- slot = path->slots[level] + 1;
- c = path->nodes[level];
- if (slot >= btrfs_header_nritems(c)) {
- level++;
- if (level == BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL)
- return 1;
- continue;
- }
-
- if (path->reada)
- reada_for_search(root, path, level, slot, 0);
-
- next = read_node_slot(root, c, slot);
- break;
- }
- path->slots[level] = slot;
- while(1) {
- level--;
- c = path->nodes[level];
- free_extent_buffer(c);
- path->nodes[level] = next;
- path->slots[level] = 0;
- if (!level)
- break;
- if (path->reada)
- reada_for_search(root, path, level, 0, 0);
- next = read_node_slot(root, next, 0);
- }
- return 0;
-}
-
static int copy_one_inline(int fd, struct btrfs_path *path, u64 pos)
{
struct extent_buffer *leaf = path->nodes[0];
@@ -447,7 +395,7 @@ static int copy_file(struct btrfs_root *root, int fd, struct
btrfs_key *key,
leaf = path->nodes[0];
while (!leaf) {
- ret = next_leaf(root, path);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
if (ret < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
ret);
@@ -470,7 +418,7 @@ static int copy_file(struct btrfs_root *root, int fd, struct
btrfs_key *key,
}
if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) {
do {
- ret = next_leaf(root, path);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
if (ret < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n", ret);
btrfs_free_path(path);
@@ -569,7 +517,7 @@ static int search_dir(struct btrfs_root *root, struct
btrfs_key *key,
if (verbose > 1)
printf("No leaf after search, looking for the next "
"leaf\n");
- ret = next_leaf(root, path);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
if (ret < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
ret);
@@ -596,7 +544,7 @@ static int search_dir(struct btrfs_root *root, struct
btrfs_key *key,
if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) {
do {
- ret = next_leaf(root, path);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
if (ret < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n",
ret);
@@ -937,7 +885,7 @@ again:
goto out;
}
do {
- ret = next_leaf(root, path);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
if (ret < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
ret);
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Filipe David Borba Manana
2013-Jul-09 18:49 UTC
[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs-progs: remove unneeded leaf checks in cmds-restore
If btrfs_search_slot() returns a value >= 0, then we can be
sure that path->nodes[i] is not NULL for each i between 0 to
tree height - 1. The function btrfs_next_leaf() also ensures
any path->nodes[i] is not NULL as long as it returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
---
cmds-restore.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-restore.c b/cmds-restore.c
index ed4815a..baa9cab 100644
--- a/cmds-restore.c
+++ b/cmds-restore.c
@@ -394,21 +394,6 @@ static int copy_file(struct btrfs_root *root, int fd,
struct btrfs_key *key,
}
leaf = path->nodes[0];
- while (!leaf) {
- ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
- if (ret < 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
- ret);
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return ret;
- } else if (ret > 0) {
- /* No more leaves to search */
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return 0;
- }
- leaf = path->nodes[0];
- }
-
while (1) {
if (loops++ >= 1024) {
ret = ask_to_continue(file);
@@ -417,19 +402,17 @@ static int copy_file(struct btrfs_root *root, int fd,
struct btrfs_key *key,
loops = 0;
}
if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) {
- do {
- ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
- if (ret < 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n", ret);
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return ret;
- } else if (ret) {
- /* No more leaves to search */
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- goto set_size;
- }
- leaf = path->nodes[0];
- } while (!leaf);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n", ret);
+ btrfs_free_path(path);
+ return ret;
+ } else if (ret) {
+ /* No more leaves to search */
+ btrfs_free_path(path);
+ goto set_size;
+ }
+ leaf = path->nodes[0];
continue;
}
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &found_key, path->slots[0]);
@@ -513,27 +496,6 @@ static int search_dir(struct btrfs_root *root, struct
btrfs_key *key,
}
leaf = path->nodes[0];
- while (!leaf) {
- if (verbose > 1)
- printf("No leaf after search, looking for the next "
- "leaf\n");
- ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
- if (ret < 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
- ret);
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return ret;
- } else if (ret > 0) {
- /* No more leaves to search */
- if (verbose)
- printf("Reached the end of the tree looking "
- "for the directory\n");
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return 0;
- }
- leaf = path->nodes[0];
- }
-
while (leaf) {
if (loops++ >= 1024) {
printf("We have looped trying to restore files in %s "
@@ -543,24 +505,22 @@ static int search_dir(struct btrfs_root *root, struct
btrfs_key *key,
}
if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) {
- do {
- ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
- if (ret < 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n",
- ret);
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return ret;
- } else if (ret > 0) {
- /* No more leaves to search */
- if (verbose)
- printf("Reached the end of "
- "the tree searching the"
- " directory\n");
- btrfs_free_path(path);
- return 0;
- }
- leaf = path->nodes[0];
- } while (!leaf);
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Error searching %d\n",
+ ret);
+ btrfs_free_path(path);
+ return ret;
+ } else if (ret > 0) {
+ /* No more leaves to search */
+ if (verbose)
+ printf("Reached the end of "
+ "the tree searching the"
+ " directory\n");
+ btrfs_free_path(path);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ leaf = path->nodes[0];
continue;
}
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &found_key, path->slots[0]);
@@ -884,20 +844,16 @@ again:
ret = 0;
goto out;
}
- do {
- ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
- if (ret < 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
- ret);
- goto out;
- } else if (ret > 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "No more leaves\n");
- goto out;
- }
- } while (!path->nodes[0]);
- if (path->nodes[0])
- goto again;
- printf("Couldn''t find a dir index item\n");
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Error getting next leaf %d\n",
+ ret);
+ goto out;
+ } else if (ret > 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "No more leaves\n");
+ goto out;
+ }
+ goto again;
out:
btrfs_free_path(path);
return ret;
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Sterba
2013-Jul-10 16:12 UTC
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf() > function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf() > from ctree.c.This has been removed by Eric''s patch present in the integration branches: Btrfs-progs: remove cut & paste btrfs_next_leaf from restore http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg24477.html but now Chris has a fix in the master branch, btrfs-restore: deal with NULL returns from read_node_slot https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=194aa4a1bd6447bb545286d0bcb0b0be8204d79f the code of updated next_leaf is not identical to btrfs_next_leaf and I think ''restore'' could be more tolerant to partially corrupted structures, so both functions could make sense in the end. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Filipe David Manana
2013-Jul-10 16:21 UTC
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf() >> function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf() >> from ctree.c. > > This has been removed by Eric''s patch present in the integration > branches: > Btrfs-progs: remove cut & paste btrfs_next_leaf from restore > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg24477.htmlOh, didn''t notice that.> > but now Chris has a fix in the master branch, > btrfs-restore: deal with NULL returns from read_node_slot > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=194aa4a1bd6447bb545286d0bcb0b0be8204d79f > > the code of updated next_leaf is not identical to btrfs_next_leaf and I > think ''restore'' could be more tolerant to partially corrupted > structures, so both functions could make sense in the end.Ok, I understand now why both exist. So please just ignore this patch and the following one (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2825425/). thanks> > david-- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That''s why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric Sandeen
2013-Aug-03 00:34 UTC
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c
On 7/10/13 11:12 AM, David Sterba wrote:> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf() >> function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf() >> from ctree.c. > > This has been removed by Eric''s patch present in the integration > branches: > Btrfs-progs: remove cut & paste btrfs_next_leaf from restore > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg24477.html > > but now Chris has a fix in the master branch, > btrfs-restore: deal with NULL returns from read_node_slot > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=194aa4a1bd6447bb545286d0bcb0b0be8204d79fJust noticed this. :( Is there some reason that kernelspace should not also get Chris'' fix, though?> the code of updated next_leaf is not identical to btrfs_next_leaf and I > think ''restore'' could be more tolerant to partially corrupted > structures, so both functions could make sense in the end.Surely kernelspace should be at least as tolerant as userspace; it it seems like Chris''s BUG_ON removal patch could benefit kernelspace too, no? And then we could take one more baby step towards a cleaner, non- cut-and-pasted codebase. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric Sandeen
2013-Aug-03 21:36 UTC
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs-progs: remove duplicated code in cmds-restore.c
On 8/2/13 7:34 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:> On 7/10/13 11:12 AM, David Sterba wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >>> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf() >>> function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf() >>> from ctree.c. >> >> This has been removed by Eric''s patch present in the integration >> branches: >> Btrfs-progs: remove cut & paste btrfs_next_leaf from restore >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg24477.html >> >> but now Chris has a fix in the master branch, >> btrfs-restore: deal with NULL returns from read_node_slot >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=194aa4a1bd6447bb545286d0bcb0b0be8204d79f > > Just noticed this. :( > > Is there some reason that kernelspace should not also get Chris'' fix, though?Or for that matter the other copy in ctree.c... Ok, my email didn''t make a ton of sense. :/ But there are basically 3 copies of this function now, diverging further - in btrfs-progs'' ctree.c and cmds-restore.c, as well as kernelspace ctree.c Should they differ? Now that I have some time I guess I''ll get back to trying to bring userspace in line w/ kernelspace again... -Eric>> the code of updated next_leaf is not identical to btrfs_next_leaf and I >> think ''restore'' could be more tolerant to partially corrupted >> structures, so both functions could make sense in the end. > > Surely kernelspace should be at least as tolerant as userspace; it > it seems like Chris''s BUG_ON removal patch could benefit kernelspace too, no? > > And then we could take one more baby step towards a cleaner, non- > cut-and-pasted codebase. > > -Eric > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html