On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 10:03 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:14 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:30:57AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 16:23 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > > @@ -2814,8 +2834,7 @@ long ext4_fallocate(struct inode *inode, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > > > block = offset >> blkbits; > > > > - max_blocks = (EXT4_BLOCK_ALIGN(len + offset, blkbits) >> blkbits) > > > > - - block; > > > > + max_blocks = EXT4_BLOCK_ALIGN(len, blkbits) >> blkbits; > > > > > > > > > > Not sure about this change... Other than this looks fine to me > > > > > > > max_blocks actually represented the number of blocks that we are > > requesting. The above change makes it simple. > > I think it's too simple. :-( > > Take an example of an empty file (no allocated blocks), offset=0xC00, > length = 0x800, block_size = 0x1000. > > The existing code will result in max_blocks = 2, accounting for both the > blocks that the allocation spans, but your new code will result in > max_blocks = 1. I agree with you. Mingming -- 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
