That sounds reasonable. I will submit a new patch based on '32-bit' and '64-bit'
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2020-03-13 05:27:48
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chucheng Luo <luochucheng@xxxxxxxx>,Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,wenhu.wang@xxxxxxxx,trivial@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix missing 'bit' in comment>On Mar 12, 2020, at 4:40 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 3/12/20 8:40 AM, Chucheng Luo wrote:
>>> The missing word may make it hard for other developers to
>>> understand it.
>>> Signed-off-by: Chucheng Luo <luochucheng@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks for catching this:
>>
>> Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Not to nit-pick, but these should properly be written as "32-bit" and "64-bit".
>That can be easily fixed in the patch before upstream submission.
>
>Cheers, Andreas
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>> fs/vboxsf/dir.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/fs/vboxsf/dir.c b/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
>>> index dd147b490982..be4f72625d36 100644
>>> --- a/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
>>> +++ b/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
>>> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static bool vboxsf_dir_emit(struct file *dir, struct dir_context *ctx)
>>> d_type = vboxsf_get_d_type(info->info.attr.mode);
>>> /*
>>> - * On 32 bit systems pos is 64 signed, while ino is 32 bit
>>> + * On 32 bit systems pos is 64 bit signed, while ino is 32 bit
>>> * unsigned so fake_ino may overflow, check for this.
>>> */
>>> if ((ino_t)(ctx->pos + 1) != (u64)(ctx->pos + 1)) {
>>
>
>
>Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
