On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:44:36AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:56:45AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Since a zero-length dedupe operation is guaranteed to succeed, use that
> > to test whether or not this filesystem supports dedupe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > file_scan.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/file_scan.c b/file_scan.c
> > index 617f166..a34453e 100644
> > --- a/file_scan.c
> > +++ b/file_scan.c
> > @@ -45,11 +45,7 @@
> > #include "file_scan.h"
> > #include "dbfile.h"
> > #include "util.h"
> > -
> > -/* This is not in linux/magic.h */
> > -#ifndef XFS_SB_MAGIC
> > -#define XFS_SB_MAGIC 0x58465342 /* 'XFSB' */
> > -#endif
> > +#include "btrfs-ioctl.h"
> >
> > static char path[PATH_MAX] = { 0, };
> > static char *pathp = path;
> > @@ -189,6 +185,39 @@ static int walk_dir(const char *name)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +struct fake_btrfs_ioctl_same_args {
> > + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args args;
> > + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info info;
> > +};
>
> Why does this need a fake structure here?
In order to test the ioctl we have to fill out at least one
btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info so that we get far enough into the fs-specific
dedupe_range handler that we've verified that the fs is capable of dedupe and
that the fs is willing to try to satisfy the request.
We could just malloc sizeof(_same_args) + sizeof(_same_extent_info)...
--D
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
