On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:57:33PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> True, but at the same time is there a reason _not_ to put the checksum
> at the end? For the superblock in particular it seems easy to do and
> simplifies the code either way.
For the superblock, OK. I'll buy that and I'll make the change so
that tail end of the superblock looks like this:
__u32 s_overhead_blocks; /* overhead blocks/clusters in fs */
__u32 s_reserved[108]; /* Padding to the end of the block */
__u32 s_checksum; /* crc32c(superblock) */
};
- 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
