On 2014-02-17 04:00, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>> + if (end > nilfs->ns_nsegments)
>> + end = nilfs->ns_nsegments;
>
> Yes, this adjustment is what we should do here, but 'end' segnum was
> rounded down to segment alighment before. So, it should be:
>
> if (end >= nilfs->ns_nsegments)
> end = nilfs->ns_nsegments - 1;
>
>> + if (end == segnum)
>> + goto out;
>
> and
>
> if (end < segnum)
> goto out;
>
>> +
>> + down_read(&NILFS_MDT(sufile)->mi_sem);
>> +
>> + while (segnum < end) {
>
> and
>
> while (segnum <= end) {
>
>> + n = min_t(unsigned long,
>> + segusages_per_block -
>> + nilfs_sufile_get_offset(sufile, segnum),
>> + end - segnum);
>
> Then, we can reuse nilfs_sufile_segment_usages_in_block() to calculate
> 'n'.
Actually I don't think that is correct. What if range->start = 0 and
range->end = 8MB. Then segnum = 0 and end = 1. Your code would discard
segment 0 and segment 1, whereas my version would discard only segment
0, which seems to be more reasonable.
br,
Andreas Rohner
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
