| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: add xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:24:00 +1000 |
| In-reply-to: | <20060712104921.A1732817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from nathans@xxxxxxx on Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:49:21AM +1000 |
| References: | <20060710170420.GD26786@xxxxxx> <20060712104921.A1732817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:49:21AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > --- xfs-2.6.x.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.h 2006-07-09 19:34:52.000000000 > > +0200 > > +++ xfs-2.6.x/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.h 2006-07-09 19:37:01.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -243,6 +243,9 @@ > > xfs_dfsbno_t ptr, /* btree block disk address */ > > int level); /* btree block level */ > > > > +#define xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk(cur, ptr, level) \ > > + xfs_btree_check_lptr(cur, INT_GET(ptr, ARCH_CONVERT), level) > > + > > Shouldn't this be using be64_to_cpu() instead of the old school Ah, you do that in a later patch in the series. > INT_GET? Maybe static inline here for type checking? *shrug*. Just this question remains - any preference on inline or not here? cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: add xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: add xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: add xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: add xfs_btree_check_lptr_disk, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |