On Nov 25, 2008 12:27 +0100, Solofo.Ramangalahy@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Andreas Dilger writes:
> > As discussed on the concall, it probably makes more sense to have the
> > resize code work by marking the inode tables UNINIT (if GDT_CSUM feature
> > is enabled)
>
> If I understand correctly, this is already the case:
> #define EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT 0x0001 /* Inode table/bitmap not in use */
> #define EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT 0x0002 /* Block bitmap not in use */
> #define EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED 0x0004 /* On-disk itable initialized to zero */
> As the EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED is not present, the inode table is UNINIT.
Ah, I suppose you are correct.
> By the way, is there any reason the #defines are like this, instead of:
> #define EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT 0x0001 /* Inode table/bitmap not in use */
> #define EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT 0x0002 /* Block bitmap not in use */
> #define EXT4_BG_ITABLE_UNINIT 0x0004 /* On-disk itable not initialized */
> ?
No particular reason, that is just how the implementation was done. In
hindsight that probably would make more sense...
> While working on this, I noted this checkpatch error
> "ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition"
> (but I am not sure of the exact justification).
I'm not sure what you are asking. The reason not to use "assignment in if"
is because of possible coding error like:
if (x = 6) {
/* do something if x is 6 */
}
when coder actually meant to write:
if (x == 6) {
/* do something if x is 6 */
}
The first one will now generate a warning in GCC unless written as:
if ((x = 6)) {
/* do something if x is 6 */
}
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, 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
