On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:18:24 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:02:42AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote: > > > PS: Should functions that chop off upper bits like that make sure they > > > are 0? > > > > I think this is something that need to be cheched at fsck since having > > these be non-zero on a non-64-bit FS should be pointing to file system > > corruption. Not sure if its something that need to be done every time > > we set a value on the lower bit only though. > > Well, to quote Postel's law (also known as the robustness principle): > "Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from > others." > > This is a generalization from what Jon Postel wrote in RFC 793: "TCP > implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be > conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > others," but it applies here as well. So yes, the library code should > clear the upper bits even if 64-bit feature flag is not set. However, > we should not depend on the upper bits being zero if the 64-bit > feature flag is not set. > > Does that make sense? Set it; don't check it. Got it. I'll just check for large descriptors instead of the 64-bit feature flag. That should set the upper bit regardless of whether we use a 64bit fs or not. > > - Ted > -JRS -- 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
