I like this patch with two minor nitpicks below. Given that it's a mostly unrelated cleanup I'd also propagate it to the first patch in the series. > + base_size = sizeof(struct xfs_buf_log_format) - > + ((XFS_BLF_DATAMAP_SIZE - bip->bli_format.blf_map_size) * > + sizeof(uint)); I'd really move this calculation and the comment describing it into a macro/inline in the header, next to the defintion of struct xfs_buf_log_format. Also I'd probably rewrite the expressions as: offsetoff(struct xfs_buf_log_format, blf_map) + (blf->blf_map_size * sizeof(blf->blf_data_map[0])); > /* > + * Minimum and maximum blocksize and sectorsize. > + * The blocksize upper limit is pretty much arbitrary. > + * The sectorsize upper limit is due to sizeof(sb_sectsize). > + */ > +#define XFS_MIN_BLOCKSIZE_LOG 9 /* i.e. 512 bytes */ > +#define XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE_LOG 16 /* i.e. 65536 bytes */ > +#define XFS_MIN_BLOCKSIZE (1 << XFS_MIN_BLOCKSIZE_LOG) > +#define XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE (1 << XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE_LOG) > +#define XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE_LOG 9 /* i.e. 512 bytes */ > +#define XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE_LOG 15 /* i.e. 32768 bytes */ > +#define XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE (1 << XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE_LOG) > +#define XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE (1 << XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE_LOG) While I agree with the move of these constants, what does it have to do with this patch? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
