On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:21:48PM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote: > diff --git a/fs/ext4/hash.c b/fs/ext4/hash.c > index ac8f168..fa8e491 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/hash.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/hash.c > @@ -200,8 +200,8 @@ int ext4fs_dirhash(const char *name, int len, struct dx_hash_info *hinfo) > return -1; > } > hash = hash & ~1; > - if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF << 1)) > - hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF-1) << 1; > + if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_32BIT << 1)) > + hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_32BIT - 1) << 1; > hinfo->hash = hash; > hinfo->minor_hash = minor_hash; > return 0; Is there a reason why we don't need to avoid the collsion with the 64-bit EOF value as well? i.e., I think we also need to add: if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_64BIT << 1)) hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_64BIT - 1) << 1; - Ted -- 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
