On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:01:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:37:43AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > I am not sure if we really need count, size and cursor to be blk_t > > > let alone blk64_t. It's a bit misleading because AFAICT those > > > variable does not represent block numbers at all. Maybe it should be > > > changed to something less confusing, preferably matching the actual > > > xattr implementation ? > > > > Oops, I got a little too s/blk_t/blk64_t/ happy there. Those could be __u32, I > > think. Or unsigned long. > > __u32 should be fine, yes. Could you send me an updated patch? Yes, I will. Are you planning to push e2fsprogs git to kernel.org/github soon? I also now have eight more patches to fix various bigalloc and metadata_csum related bugs in resize2fs. --D > > Thanks, > > - 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 -- 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
