On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > {
> > > - unsigned int di_flags;
> > > - uint64_t di_flags2;
> > > -
> > > /* can't set PREALLOC this way, just preserve it */
> > > - di_flags = (ip->i_d.di_flags & XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC);
> > > + unsigned int di_flags =
> > > + (ip->i_d.di_flags & XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC);
> >
> > ip->i_d.di_flags is uint16_t, so di_flags ought to match, right?
>
> The existing code uses unsigned int as seen above. But yes, it
> could be fixed to be a uint16_t.
>
> > Otherwise, I guess this looks ok, want to send it as a real patch?
>
> Sure. Doing some quick QA runs and it will be out.
>
> Note that I'll assume it'll be for a tree without the previous
> patch, unlike current for-next..
Yeah, I'll rebase that whole mess...
--D
> --
> 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
--
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
