Fix non-debug build for xfsidbg.c
PATCH 1/1 Fix non-debug build for xfsidbg.c
Make the use of l_iclog_bak conditional on debug configs.
--- fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +5 -0
@@ -5845,9 +5845,14 @@ xfsidbg_xlog(xlog_t *log)kdb_printf ("curr_cycle: %d prev_cycle: %d curr_block: %d prev_block: %d\n" , log->l_curr_cycle, log->l_prev_cycle, log->l_curr_block, log->l_prev_block); +#ifdef DEBUG kdb_printf ("iclog_bak: 0x%p iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , log->l_iclog_bak, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs); +#else +kdb_printf ("iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , + log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs); +#endif kdb_printf ("l_iclog_hsize %d l_iclog_heads %d\n" , log->l_iclog_hsize, log->l_iclog_heads); kdb_printf("l_sectbb_log %u l_sectbb_mask %u\n",
Dave, would the code look cleaner if iclog_bak was printed on a line by itself? That way we wouldn't need the #else and we wouldn't be duplicating code.
Quoted 27 lines · David Chinner
Make the use of
l_iclog_bakconditional on debug configs.Signed-off-by Dave Chinner <[email protected]>--- fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +5
-0@@ -5845,9 +5845,14 @@ xfsidbg_xlog(xlog_t *log)kdb_printf ("curr_cycle: %d prev_cycle: %d curr_block: %d prev_block: %d\n" , log->l_curr_cycle, log->l_prev_cycle, log->l_curr_block, log->l_prev_block); +#ifdef DEBUG kdb_printf ("iclog_bak: 0x%p iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , log->l_iclog_bak, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs); +#else +kdb_printf ("iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , + log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs); +#endif kdb_printf ("l_iclog_hsize %d l_iclog_heads %d\n" , log->l_iclog_hsize, log->l_iclog_heads); kdb_printf("l_sectbb_log %u l_sectbb_mask %u\n",
Quoted 3 lines · Lachlan McIlroy
Dave, would the code look cleaner if
iclog_bakwas printed on a line by itself?
That way we wouldn't need the #else and we wouldn't be duplicating code.
Yup, probably a good idea. I've changed it to match how this is handled in other places in xfsidbg.c:
@@ -5846,8 +5846,12 @@
log->l_curr_cycle, log->l_prev_cycle, log->l_curr_block,
log->l_prev_block);
kdb_printf("iclog_bak: 0x%p iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n",- log->l_iclog_bak, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size,
- log->l_iclog_bufs);
+#ifdef DEBUG
+ log->l_iclog_bak,
+#else
+ NULL,
+#endif
+ log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs);
kdb_printf("l_iclog_hsize %d l_iclog_heads %d\n",
log->l_iclog_hsize, log->l_iclog_heads);
kdb_printf("l_sectbb_log %u l_sectbb_mask %u\n",
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Sorry I should have been clearer. What I actually meant was something like this:
fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +5 -3
@@ -5845,9 +5845,11 @@kdb_printf ("curr_cycle: %d prev_cycle: %d curr_block: %d prev_block: %d\n" , log->l_curr_cycle, log->l_prev_cycle, log->l_curr_block, log->l_prev_block); -kdb_printf ("iclog_bak: 0x%p iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , - log->l_iclog_bak, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, - log->l_iclog_bufs); +#ifdef DEBUG +kdb_printf ("iclog_bak: 0x%p\n" , log->l_iclog_bak); +#endif +kdb_printf ("iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n" , + log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs);kdb_printf ("l_iclog_hsize %d l_iclog_heads %d\n" , log->l_iclog_hsize, log->l_iclog_heads); kdb_printf("l_sectbb_log %u l_sectbb_mask %u\n",
This way there is no code duplicated between the debug and non-debug cases. But I'm fine with your approach too.
Lachlan
Quoted 26 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 2 lines · Lachlan McIlroy
Dave, would the code look cleaner if
iclog_bakwas printed on a line by itself? That way we wouldn't need the #else and we wouldn't be duplicating code.Yup, probably a good idea. I've changed it to match how this is handled in other places in
xfsidbg.c:(quoted diff) +6
-2@@ -5846,8 +5846,12 @@ log->l_curr_cycle, log->l_prev_cycle, log->l_curr_block, log->l_prev_block); kdb_printf("iclog_bak: 0x%p iclog_size: 0x%x (%d) num iclogs: %d\n", - log->l_iclog_bak, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, - log->l_iclog_bufs); +#ifdef DEBUG + log->l_iclog_bak, +#else + NULL, +#endif + log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_size, log->l_iclog_bufs); kdb_printf("l_iclog_hsize %d l_iclog_heads %d\n", log->l_iclog_hsize, log->l_iclog_heads); kdb_printf("l_sectbb_log %u l_sectbb_mask %u\n",Cheers,
Dave.
Quoted 2 lines · Lachlan McIlroy
Sorry I should have been clearer. What I actually meant was something like this:
Whatever. It's not worth arguing about. I just want to get it fixed.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Agree.
Quoted 9 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 2 lines · Lachlan McIlroy
Sorry I should have been clearer. What I actually meant was something like this:
Whatever. It's not worth arguing about. I just want to get it fixed.
Cheers,
Dave.