"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:23:45 +0200
> Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> /*
>> * Set the fs block count
>> */
>> void ext2fs_blocks_count_set(struct ext2_super_block *super, blk64_t blk)
>> {
>> super->s_blocks_count = blk;
>> if (super->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT)
>> super->s_blocks_count_hi = (__u64) blk >> 32;
>> }
>>
>> EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT is not set so the upper bits just get
>> ignored.
>>
>> MfG
>> Goswin
>>
>> 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.
I ment checking the blk64_t blk < 2^32. And yes then the function has
to return an error code EINVAL.
But they should be zeroed out as well in the superblock just in case.
> We could add error code here but that means that the users of the
> routine need to handle the error code. Determining now if we need to
> return errcode_t here now would avoid the need to change the API later.
>
> Ted. Any comment on this one?
>
> -JRS
MfG
Goswin
--
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
