Re: [PATCH 1/1] dm raid: fix compat_features validation

[Heinz Mauelshagen]

On 10/11/2016 07:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11 2016 at 11:44am -0400,
> Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/2016 05:38 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 05:04:34PM +0200, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
> > > > Andy,
> > > >
> > > > good catch.
> > > >
> > > > We should rather check for  V190 support only in case any
> > > > compat feature flags are actually set.
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > > +       if (le32_to_cpu(sb->compat_features) &&
> > > > +           le32_to_cpu(sb->compat_features) != FEATURE_FLAG_SUPPORTS_V190)
> > > > {
> > > >                  rs->ti->error = "Unable to assemble array: Unknown flag(s)
> > > > in compatible feature flags";
> > > >                  return -EINVAL;
> > > >          }
> > > If the feature flags are single bit combinations then I believe the
> > > below does check exactly that.  Checking for no 1s outside of the
> > > expected features, caring not for the value of the valid bits:
> > >
> > > +     if (le32_to_cpu(sb->compat_features) & ~(FEATURE_FLAG_SUPPORTS_V190)) {
> > >
> > > with the possibilty to or in additional feature bits as they are added.
> > Thanks,
> > I prefer this to be easier readable.
> Readable or not, the code with the != is _not_ future-proof.  Whereas
> Andy's solution is.  If/when a new compat feature comes along then
> FEATURE_FLAG_SUPPORTS_V190 would be replaced to be a macro that ORs all
> the new compat features together (e.g. FEATURE_FLAG_COMPAT).  E.g. how
> dm-thin-metadata.c:__check_incompat_features() does.

If we'll have to introduce more feature flags in the future (e.g. for 
clustered raid1
support), this is going to be based on the test_bit() API for consistency
with any other flag processing we do in the target.

Heinz

> We can go with the != code for now, since any future changes would
> likely cause this test to be changed.  Or we could fix it now _for
> real_.
>
> Mike