Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:34:53 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/6] ext4: Implement ext4_group_block_valid() as common
 function
Message-ID: <20220201113453.exaikdfsc3vubqel@quack3.lan>
References: <cover.1643642105.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <40c85b86dd324a11c962843d8ef242780a84b25f.1643642105.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <40c85b86dd324a11c962843d8ef242780a84b25f.1643642105.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 31-01-22 20:46:51, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> This patch implements ext4_group_block_valid() check functionality,
> and refactors all the callers to use this common function instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
...

> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 8d23108cf9d7..60d32d3d8dc4 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -6001,13 +6001,7 @@ void ext4_free_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
>  		goto error_return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (in_range(ext4_block_bitmap(sb, gdp), block, count) ||
> -	    in_range(ext4_inode_bitmap(sb, gdp), block, count) ||
> -	    in_range(block, ext4_inode_table(sb, gdp),
> -		     sbi->s_itb_per_group) ||
> -	    in_range(block + count - 1, ext4_inode_table(sb, gdp),
> -		     sbi->s_itb_per_group)) {
> -
> +	if (!ext4_group_block_valid(sb, block_group, block, count)) {
>  		ext4_error(sb, "Freeing blocks in system zone - "
>  			   "Block = %llu, count = %lu", block, count);
>  		/* err = 0. ext4_std_error should be a no op */

When doing this, why not rather directly use ext4_inode_block_valid() here?

> @@ -6194,11 +6188,7 @@ int ext4_group_add_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct super_block *sb,
>  		goto error_return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (in_range(ext4_block_bitmap(sb, desc), block, count) ||
> -	    in_range(ext4_inode_bitmap(sb, desc), block, count) ||
> -	    in_range(block, ext4_inode_table(sb, desc), sbi->s_itb_per_group) ||
> -	    in_range(block + count - 1, ext4_inode_table(sb, desc),
> -		     sbi->s_itb_per_group)) {
> +	if (!ext4_group_block_valid(sb, block_group, block, count)) {
>  		ext4_error(sb, "Adding blocks in system zones - "
>  			   "Block = %llu, count = %lu",
>  			   block, count);

And here I'd rather refactor ext4_inode_block_valid() a bit to provide a
more generic helper not requiring an inode and use it here...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR