On 11/22/2012 05:29 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:10:02PM -0600, Andrew Dahl wrote:
>> On 11/21/2012 02:05 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> ...
>>>
...
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* it's a sub-rounding range */
>>> + ASSERT(offset + len <= rounding);
>> This is false. (8K - 2) <= 4K -- Not so good.
>
> Right, I put this in after testing without thinking too hard about
> it. It's always completely wrong, because offset can be an arbitrary
> 64 bit number, and rounding will always be <=64k...
>
>> Maybe (2*rounding) would be better, as offset + len could never be
>> greater than 2rounding (but can be greater than 1rounding). Or removing
>> this assert altogether.
>
> No, the correct thing to assert is:
>
> ASSERT(offset + len <= start);
>
> That is, start is rounded up, and end is rounded down, so for a
> sub-block range the end should always be less than the start of the
> next block. That's what my current code has in it.
Ah... that makes sense. Yeah, with that change, I'd say it looks great!
Thanks, Dave.
-Andrew
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
