Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:40:54 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/9] 48bit support in extents |
| |
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:21:13 -0700 Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> +/* this macro combines low and hi parts of phys. blocknr into ext4_fsblk_t */
This isn't a macro.
> +static inline ext4_fsblk_t ext_pblock(struct ext4_extent *ex) > +{ > + ext4_fsblk_t block; > + > + block = le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_start); > + if (sizeof(ext4_fsblk_t) > 4) > + block |= ((ext4_fsblk_t) le16_to_cpu(ex->ee_start_hi) << 31) << 1; > + return block; > +}
Oh. I see the other patch did
typedef sector_t ext4_fs_block_t;
(except someone misspelled "block" as "blk" ;))
Do we really want to do this? I guess there's some value, for people with 32-bit machines who want extents and who are too mean to use a 64-bit sector_t. But gee that's marginal. And it introduces interesting compatibility questions and significantly adds to the testing burden.
I think that requiring 64-bit sector_t is reasonable?
Then again, I see from the other patches that considerable thought and effort has gone into sustaining this turkey, so I guess I'm missing something again.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |