On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Hin-Tak Leung <hintak_leung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Anyway the following patch worked for me and I've got my >> iPod mounted >> and navigateable (although only in read-only mode because >> it has >> journaled filesystem). > > I worked on the netgear journalling patches a bit: > http://htl10.users.sourceforge.net/patchsets/hfsplus_3.0_rfc/patches/ > But please *back up your data*, as well as reading my notes before trying them out: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg47684.html > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg47734.html I'd be happy to try them out and to help in testing/fixing/reviewing them. >> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/super.c b/fs/hfsplus/super.c >> index c106ca2..5458be4 100644 >> --- a/fs/hfsplus/super.c >> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/super.c >> @@ -345,6 +345,8 @@ static int hfsplus_fill_super(struct >> super_block >> *sb, void *data, int silent) >> struct qstr str; >> struct nls_table *nls = NULL; >> int err; >> + unsigned check_blksz_bits; >> + u64 check_num_blocks; >> >> err = -EINVAL; >> sbi = kzalloc(sizeof(*sbi), >> GFP_KERNEL); >> @@ -399,10 +401,15 @@ static int hfsplus_fill_super(struct >> super_block >> *sb, void *data, int silent) >> if (!sbi->rsrc_clump_blocks) >> >> sbi->rsrc_clump_blocks = 1; >> >> - err = >> generic_check_addressable(sbi->alloc_blksz_shift, >> - >> >> sbi->total_blocks); >> + check_blksz_bits = >> sbi->alloc_blksz_shift; >> + check_num_blocks = >> sbi->total_blocks; >> + if (sbi->fs_shift != 0) { >> + check_num_blocks >> <<= sbi->fs_shift; >> + check_blksz_bits -= >> sbi->fs_shift; >> + } >> + err = >> generic_check_addressable(check_blksz_bits, >> check_num_blocks); >> if (err) { >> printk(KERN_ERR "hfs: >> filesystem size too large.\n"); >> goto out_free_vhdr; >> >> >> I can format and submit both patches (plus a small cleanup >> that I felt >> is needed to be changed along the way). Tell me what you >> think. > > This is a bit ugly - what it does is massage the two values taking into account of sbi->fs_shift to pass check_addressable() . I think either check_addressable should be extended, or this be abstracted out say, to check_hfs_addressable() (with __inline__ if desired) to be cleaner. Agreed. It was more of a quick hack to prove the correctness of such change direction. I'll think how to do it better. Thank you, Pavel -- 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
