Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:20:02 GMT From: Matthew Rezny <mrezny@hexaneinc.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/178388: [zfs] [patch] allow up to 8MB recordsize Message-ID: <201305071420.r47EK2Ig051093@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/178388; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Matthew Rezny <mrezny@hexaneinc.com> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, nowak@tepeserwery.pl Cc: Subject: Re: kern/178388: [zfs] [patch] allow up to 8MB recordsize Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:11:50 +0200 The proposed patch is rather ugly. Is there some reason to not simply change the definition of SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE? The point of defining a constant is it can then be changed in the place it's defined rather than in every place it's used. Having to go change every reference to it is error prone as missing a single reference could wreck havoc. Specifically, I call into question the effect this has on the definition of SPA_BLOCKSIZES. The reference to SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE was not replaced by SPA_BIGBLOCKSIZE and thus SPA_BLOCKSIZES is insufficiently sized to represent all the possible block sizes that could be used. That one jumped out at me when I skimmed over the patch. I have not reviewed all the ZFS code to look for other unchanged references that are not part of the patch context.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201305071420.r47EK2Ig051093>