On 2018/12/10 下午7:32, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 10.12.18 г. 13:20 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/12/10 下午5:48, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6.12.18 г. 8:58 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> Current delayed ref interface has several problems:
>>>> - Longer and longer parameter lists
>>>> bytenr
>>>> num_bytes
>>>> parent
>>>> ref_root
>>>> owner
>>>> offset
>>>> for_reloc << Only qgroup code cares.
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> +struct btrfs_data_ref {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * For EXTENT_DATA_REF
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @ref_root: current owner of the extent.
>>>> + * may differ from btrfs_ref::real_root.
>>>
>>> Here 'owner' is a bit ambiguous. Isn't this the root of the owner
>>
>> Well, the @ref_root is a little confusing.
>> Here it could mean "the current btrfs_header_owner(eb)".
>>
>> I don't really know the correct term here.
>
> My point was that the word owner is being overloaded. I guess the whole
> sentence can be rephrased as:
>
> "The root this reference originates from. For cases where ref_root
> differs from btrfs_ref::real_root consult btrfs_ref comments". Or
> something along those lines.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + * @ino: inode number of the owner.
>>>
>>> And the owner is really the owning inode?
>>
>> Yes, the owning inode.
>>
>>>
>>>> + * @offset: *CALCULATED* offset. Not EXTENT_DATA key offset.
>>>
>>> What does calculated mean here?
>>
>> Because btrfs data backref instead of using the offset of the owning
>> EXTENT_DATA key, it uses key->offset - extent_offset.
>
> There's no way anyone reading: *CALCULATED* offset could infer that.
> Please reword. Even this sentence is a bit terse. When writing
> documentation assume people who are going to read it will have *very*
> little knowledge of the internal structure of the code.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + *
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> Ugh, this is ugly, why not have a single /* */ line above each member
>>> and document them like that?
>>
>> Because the complexity of @ref_root can't really go one line.
>
> What I meant is to have the documentation for every member right above
> the respective member, rather than having the documentation in one
> place, followed by the variables. If it takes more than a single line to
> document a member so be it.
Understood.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Use full backref(SHARED_BLOCK_REF or SHARED_DATA_REF) for this
>>>> + * extent and its children.
>>>> + * Set for reloc trees.
>>>> + */
>>>> + unsigned int use_fullback:1;
>>>
>>> 'fullback' is too terse, use_backreferences or something conveying more
>>> information?
>>
>> @use_backreferences looks even stranger to me.
>>
>> Here the point is, if this bit set, all backref will use
>> SHARED_BLOCK_REF or SHARED_DATA_REF subtype, and just leave a pointer to
>> its parent.
>>
>> Any good idea for explaining this?
>
> What's the alternative if this bit is not set, how would the tree look like?
If not set and @parent is 0, it will goes normal backref like
EXTENT_DATA_REF (root, ino, offset), or TREE_BLOCK_REF (root, level).
If not set and @parent is not 0, it will go SHARED_BLOCK_REF or
SHARED_DATA_REF (parent).
>
>
>>
>>> Also please use explicit bool type:
>>>
>>> bool xxxx:1
>>
>> Is this valid? Haven't seen such usage in kernel code IIRC.
>
> git grep 'bool .*:1' | wc -l
> 417
grep -IR 'bool .*:1' fs/btrfs/ | wc -l
0
So I guess another cleanup?
Thanks,
Qu
>
> <snip>
>>
