On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:23:18PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:57:08PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chandan Rajendra > >> <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > An overlayfs filesystem instance with one lowerdir filesystem and with > >> > "xino" mount option enabled can have the layer index encoded in the 63rd > >> > bit of the inode number. A signed 64 bit integer won't suffice to store > >> > this inode number. Hence this commit uses strtoul() to convert the inode > >> > number in string form to unsigned integer form. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Looks good, especially since I had to fix the same problem myself ;) > >> https://github.com/amir73il/xfstests/commits/overlayfs-devel > >> > >> My patch also changes: > >> > >> int type = -1; /* -1 means all types */ > >> - uint64_t ino = 0; > >> + unsigned long ino = 0; > >> int ret = 1; > >> > >> But I am not sure that is the right thing to do here or what difference it makes > > > > I think that strtoul() returns unsigned long, which could be 32bit, and > > uint64_t is guaranteed to be 64bit size, so I tend to change the ino > > definition too. But I guess that doesn't matter that much :) > > > > The thing is that 'ino' is later compared with 'd->d_ino', which is uint64_t, > so on 32bit CPU, the conversion will happen either in assignment from > strtoul() or in comparison later. I guess it doesn't matter much, so I prefer > Chandan's version that leaves ino as uint64_t. Yeah, I noticed that too. I'll take it as-is, thanks! Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
