On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 22:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:35:37AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:

quoted

The intention of lib/uuid.c is to unify various UUID related code, and
put them in same place.  In addition to UUID generation, it provide some
other utility and may provide/collect more in the future.  So do you
think it is a good idea to put generate_rand_uuid/guid into lib/uuid.c
and maybe change the name/prototype to make it consistent with other
uuid definitions?

I had trouble understanding why lib/uuid.c existed, since the only
thing I saw was the uuid generation function.  After some more
looking, I see you also created inline functions which wrapped
memcmp().

The problem I have with your abstractions is that it just makes life
more complicated for the callers.  All of the current places which use
generate_random_uuid() merely want to fill in a unsigned char array.
This includes btrfs, by the way, which is already using
generate_random_uuid in some places, and I'm not sure why they are
using uuid_le_gen(), since there doesn't seem to be any need for a
little-endian uuid/guid here (it's just used as unique bag of bits
which is 16 bytes long), and using uuid_le_gen() means extra memory
has to be allocated on the stack, and then an extra memory copy is
required.  Contrast (in fs/btrfs/root-tree.c):

	   uuid_le uuid;
	   ...
		uuid_le_gen(&uuid);
		memcpy(item->uuid, uuid.b, BTRFS_UUID_SIZE);

versus, simply doing (fs/btrfs/volumes.c):

	generate_random_uuid(fs_devices->fsid);

see which one is easier?  And after the uuid is generated, none of the
current callers ever do any manipulation of the uuid, so there's no
real point to play fancy typedef games; it just adds more work for no
real gain.

If we use uuid_le when we define the data structure, life will be eaiser

struct btrfs_root_item {
	...
	uuid_le uuid;
	...
};

Then it is quite easy to use it.

uuid_le_gen(&item->uuid);

That is the intended usage model.

UUID_LE() macro definition has some user.  It makes it easier to
construct UUID/GUID defined in some specs.

quoted

quoted

Using UUID vs. GUID I think makes things much clearer, since the EFI
specification talks about GUID's, not UUID's, and that way we don't
have to worry about people getting confused about whether they should
be using the little-endian versus big-endian variant.  (And I'd love
to ask to whoever wrote the EFI specification what on *Earth* were
they thinking when they decided to diverge from the rest of the
world....)

I think that is a good idea.  From Wikipedia, GUID is in native byte
order, while UUID is in internet byte order.

Well, technially GUID is "intel/little-endian byte order".  If someone
tried to implement the GPT on a big-endian system, such as PowerPC,
they would still have to use the little-endian byte order, even though
it's not the native byte order for that architecture.  Otherwise
devices wouldn't be portable between those systems.  (This is why I
think the GUID was such a bad idea; everyone basically treats them as
16 byte octet strings, so this whole idea of "native byte order" just
to save a few byte swaps at UUID generation time was really, IMHO, a
very bad idea.)

Yes.  Explicit byte order is better.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying