On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:21:13 -0700
Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +/* this macro combines low and hi parts of phys. blocknr into ext4_fsblk_t */
This isn't a macro.
> +static inline ext4_fsblk_t ext_pblock(struct ext4_extent *ex)
> +{
> + ext4_fsblk_t block;
> +
> + block = le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_start);
> + if (sizeof(ext4_fsblk_t) > 4)
> + block |= ((ext4_fsblk_t) le16_to_cpu(ex->ee_start_hi) << 31) << 1;
> + return block;
> +}
Oh. I see the other patch did
typedef sector_t ext4_fs_block_t;
(except someone misspelled "block" as "blk" ;))
Do we really want to do this? I guess there's some value, for people with
32-bit machines who want extents and who are too mean to use a 64-bit
sector_t. But gee that's marginal. And it introduces interesting
compatibility questions and significantly adds to the testing burden.
I think that requiring 64-bit sector_t is reasonable?
Then again, I see from the other patches that considerable thought and
effort has gone into sustaining this turkey, so I guess I'm missing
something again.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
