Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:36:41AM +0000, Sam James wrote: >> + /* We're only interested in supporting an off_t which can handle >=4GiB. */ > > This adds a < 80 character line. Also I find the wording a bit odd, the > point is that xfsprogs relies on (it or rather will with your entire > series), so maybe: > > /* > * xfsprogs relies on the LFS interfaces with a 64-bit off_t to > * actually support sensible file systems sizes. > */ > > And while I'm nitpicking, maybe a better place would be to move this to > libxfs as that's where we really care. If you use the C99 static_assert > instead of the kernel BUILD_BUG_ON this can even move outside a function > and just into a header somewhere, say include/xfs,h. Which actually > happens to have this assert in an awkware open coded way already: > > /* > * make sure that any user of the xfs headers has a 64bit off_t type > */ > extern int xfs_assert_largefile[sizeof(off_t)-8]; > > Enough of my stream of consciousness, sorry. To summarize the findings: > > - we don't really need this patch all > - but cleaning up xfs_assert_largefile to just use static_assert would > probably be nice to have anyway Thanks, I agree, but I think static_assert is C11 (and then it gets a nicer name in C23). If it's still fine for us, I can then use it. Does it change your thinking at all or should I send a v4 with it included? Thanks, sam
