Joel Becker wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:36:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Er, yeah. I had 32 bits in my head since that's the case we're
>> checking for... whoops.
>>
>> So I guess your
>>
>> ... ||
>> ((last_fs_block >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)) >
>> (pgoff_t)(!0ULL))) {
>>
>> is right :) (my feeble brain has a hard time reading that, though, TBH)
>
> Well, note the bug in my quickly typed version: "(!0ULL)" vs
> "(~0ULL)".
*nod* saw that but figured it was just a typo & didn't mention it ;)
> How about:
>
> u64 last_fs_page = last_fs_block >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits);
>
> ... ||
> (last_fs_page > (pgoff_t)(~0ULL))) {
>
> Is that more readable?
To me, yes. Maybe do similar for last_fs_sector.
If it's getting too verbose I understand, but less dense is a lot easier
to read, IMHO. Just style though, really, so *shrug*
Thanks,
-Eric
> Joel
>
--
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
