Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:17:21AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for >> the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for >> block number '0'. So use -1 instead. > > sector_t is an unsigned type, so we probably want to use ~0 instead of > -1. I can fix this up before we apply into the patch queue. I don't think that helps. The point is to have a block number which is invalid, therefore won't get unmapped or accidentally written to ... -Eric > Are we agreed both of these should probably be pushed to Linus for > 2.6.30? > > - Ted -- 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
