On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:13:00PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > + /* ino must not collide with any ino assigned in the loop below. Set > > + it to the highest possible inode number */ > > + inode->i_ino = (1 << (sizeof(s->s_lastino) * 8)) - 1; > > This really isn't a good idiom to be using; GCC now takes this to mean > "I can reformat your hard drive because you did something outside the > spec". > > Try instead: > + inode->i_ino = -1; > The problem there is that on platforms with a 64-bit ino_t, this will be too large to fit in a 32-bit field and we'll end up with the same EOVERFLOW problem. Is there a more correct way to make it size appropriately given the different possible sizes of s_lastino? I suppose we could just set it to 0xffffffff and hope that that is "big enough" for most cases. -- Jeff - 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
