On Jul 23, 2007 18:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > hm, yes, there is a risk that the code was accidentally correct. Or the > code has only ever dealt with power-of-2 inputs, in which case it happens > to work either way. > > David(s) and ext4-people: could we please have a close review of these > changes? > > @@ -1706,8 +1704,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super > > - sbi->s_addr_per_block_bits = log2(EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb)); > > - sbi->s_desc_per_block_bits = log2(EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb)); > > + sbi->s_addr_per_block_bits = ilog2(EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb)); > > + sbi->s_desc_per_block_bits = ilog2(EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb)); For the ext[234] code there has only ever been power-of-two values for ADDR_PER_BLOCK() and DESC_PER_BLOCK(). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
