2013/10/30, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/cache.c b/fs/fat/cache.c >>>> index 91ad9e1..37572c2 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/fat/cache.c >>>> +++ b/fs/fat/cache.c >>>> @@ -329,10 +329,10 @@ int fat_bmap(struct inode *inode, sector_t >>>> sector, >>>> sector_t *phys, >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> /* >>>> - * ->mmu_private can access on only allocation path. >>>> + * ->i_disksize can access on only allocation path. >>>> * (caller must hold ->i_mutex) >>>> */ >>>> - last_block = (MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private + (blocksize - 1)) >>>> + last_block = (MSDOS_I(inode)->i_disksize + (blocksize - 1)) >>>> >> blocksize_bits; >>>> if (sector >= last_block) >>>> return 0; >>> >>> Hm, bmap() ioctl returns between ->mmu_private and i_disksize? I'm not >>> checking other FSes what does... >> I added this code after checking such behaviour from ext4. > > OK. I will check with it. BTW, comment should say the both > (i.e. ->mmu_private and ->i_disksize must under ->i_mutex). Okay, I will update. Thanks! > -- > 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
