Re: [PATCH 05/22] mkfs: add a check for conflicting values

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 3/15/17 11:00 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Add a check that reports a conflict only when subopts are mixed with specific values.

Can you explain more about what changes here, maybe with an example?

...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
> ---
>  mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> index c9861409..7e0a4159 100644
> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> @@ -1311,18 +1311,18 @@ illegal_option(
>   */
>  static void
>  check_opt(
> -	struct opt_params	*opts,
> +	struct opt_params	*opt,
>  	int			index,
>  	bool			str_seen)
>  {
> -	struct subopt_param	*sp = &opts->subopt_params[index];
> +	struct subopt_param	*sp = &opt->subopt_params[index];
>  	int			i;
>  
>  	if (sp->index != index) {
>  		fprintf(stderr,
>  	("Developer screwed up option parsing (%d/%d)! Please report!\n"),
>  			sp->index, index);
> -		reqval(opts->name, (char **)opts->subopts, index);
> +		reqval(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts, index);
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -1335,11 +1335,11 @@ check_opt(
>  	 */
>  	if (!str_seen) {
>  		if (sp->seen)
> -			respec(opts->name, (char **)opts->subopts, index);
> +			respec(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts, index);
>  		sp->seen = true;
>  	} else {
>  		if (sp->str_seen)
> -			respec(opts->name, (char **)opts->subopts, index);
> +			respec(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts, index);
>  		sp->str_seen = true;
>  	}

Up to here you have only changed a variable name; I'm not sure why?
 
> @@ -1349,10 +1349,44 @@ check_opt(
>  
>  		if (conflict_opt.opt == LAST_CONFLICT)
>  			break;
> -		if (opts->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> -		    opts->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen)
> -			conflict(opts->name, (char **)opts->subopts,
> +		if (conflict_opt.test_values)
> +			break;
> +		if (opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> +		    opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) {
> +			conflict(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts,
>  				 conflict_opt.subopt, index);

now the name change is mixed with a functional change in the middle,
so it's harder to see... a non-functional patch for the name change
would be better, if it's necessary.

> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Check for conflict values between options.
> + */
> +static void
> +check_opt_value(
> +	struct opt_params	*opt,
> +	int			index,
> +	long long 		value)
> +{
> +	struct subopt_param	*sp = &opt->subopt_params[index];
> +	int			i;
> +
> +	/* check for conflicts with the option */
> +	for (i = 0; i < MAX_CONFLICTS; i++) {
> +		struct subopt_conflict conflict_opt = sp->conflicts[i];
> +
> +		if (conflict_opt.opt == LAST_CONFLICT)
> +			break;
> +		if (!conflict_opt.test_values)
> +			break;
> +		if ((opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].seen ||
> +				    opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].str_seen) &&
> +		    opt->subopt_params[conflict_opt.subopt].value
> +				== conflict_opt.invalid_value &&
> +		    value == conflict_opt.at_value) {
> +			conflict(opt->name, (char **)opt->subopts,
> +				 conflict_opt.subopt, index);
> +		}
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -1399,6 +1433,8 @@ getnum(
>  			illegal_option(str, opts, index, NULL);
>  	}
>  
> +	check_opt_value(opts, index, c);
> +
>  	/* Validity check the result. */
>  	if (c < sp->minval)
>  		illegal_option(str, opts, index, _("value is too small"));
>