linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry()
@ 2020-10-13  3:48 Gao Xiang
  2020-10-13 13:44 ` Brian Foster
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao Xiang @ 2020-10-13  3:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-xfs
  Cc: Darrick J. Wong, Brian Foster, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner, Gao Xiang

Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process.
Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.

Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
---
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@redhat.com

changes since v1:
 - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian);
 - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian);
 - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian).

 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h |  3 ++
 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
@@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (sbp->sb_unit) {
-		if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
-		    sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
-		    (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
-			xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
-			return -EFSCORRUPTED;
-		}
-	} else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
+	/*
+	 * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
+	 * would imply the image is corrupted.
+	 */
+	if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
 		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed");
 		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
-	} else if (sbp->sb_width) {
-		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe width sanity check failed");
-		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
 	}
 
+	if (!xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(mp, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, sbp->sb_unit),
+			XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, sbp->sb_width), 0, false))
+		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
 
 	if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
 	    sbp->sb_blocksize < XFS_MIN_CRC_BLOCKSIZE) {
@@ -1233,3 +1230,54 @@ xfs_sb_get_secondary(
 	*bpp = bp;
 	return 0;
 }
+
+/*
+ * sunit, swidth, sectorsize(optional with 0) should be all in bytes,
+ * so users won't be confused by values in error messages.
+ */
+bool
+xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(
+	struct xfs_mount	*mp,
+	__s64			sunit,
+	__s64			swidth,
+	int			sectorsize,
+	bool			silent)
+{
+	if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) {
+		if (!silent)
+			xfs_notice(mp,
+"stripe unit (%lld) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)",
+				   sunit, sectorsize);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (sunit && !swidth) {
+		if (!silent)
+			xfs_notice(mp,
+"invalid stripe unit (%lld) and stripe width of 0", sunit);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (!sunit && swidth) {
+		if (!silent)
+			xfs_notice(mp,
+"invalid stripe width (%lld) and stripe unit of 0", swidth);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (sunit > swidth) {
+		if (!silent)
+			xfs_notice(mp,
+"stripe unit (%lld) is larger than the stripe width (%lld)", sunit, swidth);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) {
+		if (!silent)
+			xfs_notice(mp,
+"stripe width (%lld) must be a multiple of the stripe unit (%lld)",
+				   swidth, sunit);
+		return false;
+	}
+	return true;
+}
diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
index 92465a9a5162..f79f9dc632b6 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
@@ -42,4 +42,7 @@ extern int	xfs_sb_get_secondary(struct xfs_mount *mp,
 				struct xfs_trans *tp, xfs_agnumber_t agno,
 				struct xfs_buf **bpp);
 
+extern bool	xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(struct xfs_mount *mp,
+		__s64 sunit, __s64 swidth, int sectorsize, bool silent);
+
 #endif	/* __XFS_SB_H__ */
-- 
2.18.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry()
  2020-10-13  3:48 [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() Gao Xiang
@ 2020-10-13 13:44 ` Brian Foster
  2020-10-13 13:55   ` Gao Xiang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Brian Foster @ 2020-10-13 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gao Xiang; +Cc: linux-xfs, Darrick J. Wong, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48:53AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process.
> Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
> ---
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@redhat.com
> 
> changes since v1:
>  - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian);
>  - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian);
>  - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian).
> 
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h |  3 ++
>  2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> -		if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> -		    sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> -		    (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
> -			xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
> -			return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> -		}
> -	} else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> +	/*
> +	 * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
> +	 * would imply the image is corrupted.
> +	 */
> +	if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {

This can be simplified to drop the negations (!), right?

>  		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed");
>  		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> -	} else if (sbp->sb_width) {
> -		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe width sanity check failed");
> -		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(mp, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, sbp->sb_unit),
> +			XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, sbp->sb_width), 0, false))
> +		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
>  
>  	if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
>  	    sbp->sb_blocksize < XFS_MIN_CRC_BLOCKSIZE) {
> @@ -1233,3 +1230,54 @@ xfs_sb_get_secondary(
>  	*bpp = bp;
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +/*
> + * sunit, swidth, sectorsize(optional with 0) should be all in bytes,
> + * so users won't be confused by values in error messages.
> + */
> +bool
> +xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(
> +	struct xfs_mount	*mp,
> +	__s64			sunit,
> +	__s64			swidth,
> +	int			sectorsize,
> +	bool			silent)
> +{
> +	if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) {
> +		if (!silent)
> +			xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe unit (%lld) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)",
> +				   sunit, sectorsize);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (sunit && !swidth) {
> +		if (!silent)
> +			xfs_notice(mp,
> +"invalid stripe unit (%lld) and stripe width of 0", sunit);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!sunit && swidth) {
> +		if (!silent)
> +			xfs_notice(mp,
> +"invalid stripe width (%lld) and stripe unit of 0", swidth);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (sunit > swidth) {
> +		if (!silent)
> +			xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe unit (%lld) is larger than the stripe width (%lld)", sunit, swidth);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) {

It might be good to use (or not) params consistently. I.e., the
sectorsize check earlier in the function has similar logic structure but
drops the params.

Those nits aside:

Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>

> +		if (!silent)
> +			xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe width (%lld) must be a multiple of the stripe unit (%lld)",
> +				   swidth, sunit);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> index 92465a9a5162..f79f9dc632b6 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> @@ -42,4 +42,7 @@ extern int	xfs_sb_get_secondary(struct xfs_mount *mp,
>  				struct xfs_trans *tp, xfs_agnumber_t agno,
>  				struct xfs_buf **bpp);
>  
> +extern bool	xfs_validate_stripe_geometry(struct xfs_mount *mp,
> +		__s64 sunit, __s64 swidth, int sectorsize, bool silent);
> +
>  #endif	/* __XFS_SB_H__ */
> -- 
> 2.18.1
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry()
  2020-10-13 13:44 ` Brian Foster
@ 2020-10-13 13:55   ` Gao Xiang
  2020-10-13 14:07     ` Brian Foster
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao Xiang @ 2020-10-13 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs, Darrick J. Wong, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner

Hi Brian,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:44:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48:53AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process.
> > Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@redhat.com
> > 
> > changes since v1:
> >  - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian);
> >  - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian);
> >  - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian).
> > 
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h |  3 ++
> >  2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > @@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> > -		if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> > -		    sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> > -		    (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
> > -			xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
> > -			return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > -		}
> > -	} else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
> > +	 * would imply the image is corrupted.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> 
> This can be simplified to drop the negations (!), right?

Thanks for the suggestion.

yet nope, honestly I don't think so, the reason is that sbp->sb_unit is
an integer here rather than a boolean, so negations cannot be
simplified and I think it's simpliest now... (some boolean algebra...)

> 
> >  		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed");

...

> > +	if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) {
> > +		if (!silent)
> > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > +"stripe unit (%lld) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)",
> > +				   sunit, sectorsize);
> > +		return false;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (sunit && !swidth) {
> > +		if (!silent)
> > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > +"invalid stripe unit (%lld) and stripe width of 0", sunit);
> > +		return false;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!sunit && swidth) {
> > +		if (!silent)
> > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > +"invalid stripe width (%lld) and stripe unit of 0", swidth);
> > +		return false;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (sunit > swidth) {
> > +		if (!silent)
> > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > +"stripe unit (%lld) is larger than the stripe width (%lld)", sunit, swidth);
> > +		return false;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) {
> 
> It might be good to use (or not) params consistently. I.e., the
> sectorsize check earlier in the function has similar logic structure but
> drops the params.

Yeah, that is due to the line was copied from somewhere else... so...
Anyway, I can resend a quick fix for this if needed. Wait a sec
for some potential feedback...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Those nits aside:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry()
  2020-10-13 13:55   ` Gao Xiang
@ 2020-10-13 14:07     ` Brian Foster
  2020-10-13 14:11       ` Gao Xiang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Brian Foster @ 2020-10-13 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gao Xiang; +Cc: linux-xfs, Darrick J. Wong, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:55:37PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:44:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48:53AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process.
> > > Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@redhat.com
> > > 
> > > changes since v1:
> > >  - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian);
> > >  - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian);
> > >  - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian).
> > > 
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h |  3 ++
> > >  2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > @@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> > > -		if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> > > -		    sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> > > -		    (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
> > > -			xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
> > > -			return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > > -		}
> > > -	} else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
> > > +	 * would imply the image is corrupted.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> > 
> > This can be simplified to drop the negations (!), right?
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> yet nope, honestly I don't think so, the reason is that sbp->sb_unit is
> an integer here rather than a boolean, so negations cannot be
> simplified and I think it's simpliest now... (some boolean algebra...)
> 

Oh, right. So you'd actually need something like (!!sunit ^ hasdalign())
to avoid the bit operation.

Brian

> > 
> > >  		xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed");
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) {
> > > +		if (!silent)
> > > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > > +"stripe unit (%lld) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)",
> > > +				   sunit, sectorsize);
> > > +		return false;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (sunit && !swidth) {
> > > +		if (!silent)
> > > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > > +"invalid stripe unit (%lld) and stripe width of 0", sunit);
> > > +		return false;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (!sunit && swidth) {
> > > +		if (!silent)
> > > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > > +"invalid stripe width (%lld) and stripe unit of 0", swidth);
> > > +		return false;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (sunit > swidth) {
> > > +		if (!silent)
> > > +			xfs_notice(mp,
> > > +"stripe unit (%lld) is larger than the stripe width (%lld)", sunit, swidth);
> > > +		return false;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) {
> > 
> > It might be good to use (or not) params consistently. I.e., the
> > sectorsize check earlier in the function has similar logic structure but
> > drops the params.
> 
> Yeah, that is due to the line was copied from somewhere else... so...
> Anyway, I can resend a quick fix for this if needed. Wait a sec
> for some potential feedback...
> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
> > 
> > Those nits aside:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry()
  2020-10-13 14:07     ` Brian Foster
@ 2020-10-13 14:11       ` Gao Xiang
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao Xiang @ 2020-10-13 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs, Darrick J. Wong, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:07:26AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:55:37PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:44:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48:53AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > > Introduce a common helper to consolidate stripe validation process.
> > > > Also make kernel code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201009050546.32174-1-hsiangkao@redhat.com
> > > > 
> > > > changes since v1:
> > > >  - rename the helper to xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() (Brian);
> > > >  - drop a new added trailing newline in xfs_sb.c (Brian);
> > > >  - add a "bool silent" argument to avoid too many error messages (Brian).
> > > > 
> > > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.h |  3 ++
> > > >  2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > > index 5aeafa59ed27..9178715ded45 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > > > @@ -360,21 +360,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
> > > >  		}
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> > > > -		if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> > > > -		    sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> > > > -		    (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
> > > > -			xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
> > > > -			return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > > > -		}
> > > > -	} else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
> > > > +	 * would imply the image is corrupted.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> > > 
> > > This can be simplified to drop the negations (!), right?
> > 
> > Thanks for the suggestion.
> > 
> > yet nope, honestly I don't think so, the reason is that sbp->sb_unit is
> > an integer here rather than a boolean, so negations cannot be
> > simplified and I think it's simpliest now... (some boolean algebra...)
> > 
> 
> Oh, right. So you'd actually need something like (!!sunit ^ hasdalign())
> to avoid the bit operation.

Agree, that expression looks better <nod>
I will switch to it then. Thanks!

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Brian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-13 14:11 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-13  3:48 [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce xfs_validate_stripe_geometry() Gao Xiang
2020-10-13 13:44 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-13 13:55   ` Gao Xiang
2020-10-13 14:07     ` Brian Foster
2020-10-13 14:11       ` Gao Xiang

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).