On Wed 16-08-23 07:31:34, Georg Ottinger wrote: > I missed the proper format string for the debug message. Thanks. I've fixed up the patch in my tree. > answering Andreas question - I did check the remaining calls to > ext2_new_block(), ext2_new_blocks() and ext2_free_blocks() within the > ext2 directory - here the block argument is either unsigned long or > ext2_fsblk_t (which is a typedef to unsigend long) - However I want to > mention that the use of unsigned long / ext2_fsblk_t is inconsistent. I > guess that ext2_fsblk_t should be the prefered data type. Yes, that's correct. We should be using ext2_fsblk_t all over the place. In fact unsigned long is also a questionable type. On disk the block number is u32, so unsigned long is pointlessly big on 64-bit archs and just using u32 as ext2_fsblk_t would make more sense. But then it's possible there are some overflows in the code currently hidden by the fact that most of the testing happens on 64-bit where long is 64-bit. So the switch would need somewhat careful review. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
