Re: [patch] ext2: xip check fix

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nick Piggin wrote:
Am I missing something here? I wonder how s390 works without this change?

--
ext2 should not worry about checking sb->s_blocksize for XIP before the
sb's blocksize actually gets set.

Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
---
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext2/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext2/super.c
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext2/super.c
@@ -844,8 +844,7 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_

 	blocksize = BLOCK_SIZE << le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_log_block_size);

-	if ((ext2_use_xip(sb)) && ((blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) ||
-				  (sb->s_blocksize != blocksize))) {
+	if (ext2_use_xip(sb) && blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) {
 		if (!silent)
 			printk("XIP: Unsupported blocksize\n");
 		goto failed_mount;
"blocksize" contains the blocksize of the device here, and sb->s_blocksize does contain the filesystem block size as saved in the super block. Xip does only work, if both do match PAGE_SIZE because it does'nt support multiple calls to direct_access in the get_xip_page address space operation. Thus we check both here, actually this was changed from how it looks after your patch as a bugfix where our tester tried a 4k filesystem on a 2k blockdev.
Did I miss something?
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux