David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 01:40 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> Perhaps, after checking cluster-chain corruption is better. Thanks. > > That can be done, but not like that, I think. At the point you added the > blkdev_issue_discard() call, the value of 'cluster' has already changed. > > So if the chain being freed is clusters 10, 11 and 12, your version of > the patch will attempt to discard clusters 11, 12 and 0xFFFF (EOF). + fat_clus_to_blknr(sbi, fatent.entry), No, no. I used fatent.entry, not cluster. > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 02:14 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> Ah, blkdev_issue_discard() assumes blocksize is 512bytes, um... > > Doesn't everything? I did consider using q->hardsect_size, but decided > that was probably the wrong thing to do. I don't know. Jens? My point is fs-blocksize vs hard sector size. In FAT patch, it's passing the number of fs-blocks, not number of hard sectors. >> blkdev_issue_discard() takes bytes, > > -EPARSE. It takes sectors at the moment -- do you mean you _want_ it to > take bytes? Yes and no. I guess bytes or _fs_-blocksize is good interface for fs. >> and instead add some helpers for sb or inode? > > I suppose we could; I'm not really so sure we need them. > inode->i_sb->s_bdev isn't exactly hard... -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
