On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:33:23AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
>> Thus, uint64_t is the best candidate as the target
>> type for numeric values. The existing uses of __uint64_t in mkfs change to the
>> standard uint64_t type.
>
> <-- snip -->
>
>> CHANGES:
>> * __uint64_t -> uint64_t
>
> <-- snip -->
>
>> diff --git a/include/xfs_multidisk.h b/include/xfs_multidisk.h
>> index ce9bbce..ab74536 100644
>> --- a/include/xfs_multidisk.h
>> +++ b/include/xfs_multidisk.h
>> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
>> #define XFS_NOMULTIDISK_AGLOG 2 /* 4 AGs */
>> #define XFS_MULTIDISK_AGCOUNT (1 << XFS_MULTIDISK_AGLOG)
>>
>> -extern long long cvtnum(unsigned int blksize, unsigned int sectsize,
>> +extern __uint64_t cvtnum(unsigned int blksize, unsigned int sectsize,
>
> I thought uint64_t was desired ?
>
>> -long long
>> +uint64_t
>> cvtnum(
>> unsigned int blksize,
>> unsigned int sectsize,
>> const char *s)
>> {
>
>
> Indeed. Probably just a missed case?
>
Yes, sorry for missing that.
Thanks,
Jan
> Luis
--
Jan Tulak
jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
