On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:52:55PM -0400, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> > Agreed. It was more of a quick hack to prove the correctness of such
> > change direction. I'll think how to do it better.
> 
> Hin-Tak,
> 
> How about the following patch?
> 
> 
> Subject: [PATCH] hfsplus: Allow to mount filesystem with block size
> greater than PAGE_SIZE
> 
> Commit c6d5f5fa (hfsplus: lift the 2TB size limit) added call to
> generic_check_addressable() but used the system's internal block size
> which can be larger than PAGE_SIZE and will cause
> generic_check_addressable() to return -EINVAL in this case. This
> results in impossibility to mount file systems with such block sizes.
> To fix it we have to use block size understandable by
> generic_check_addressable() and adjust number of blocks accordingly.

Given that a large part of the checks are related to the actual
block size I think that we're better off just opencoding it.