[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches

To: "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches
From: sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:34:45 -0600 (CST)
Cc: "Timothy Shimmin" <tes@xxxxxxx>, "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20061117055521.GS11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <455CB54F.8080901@xxxxxxxxxxx> <BB70F203E29C2D37A2F727C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117023946.GN11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CEB981736A0E8C7DF9ABD7C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117055521.GS11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-2.el4.centos4
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 02:11:12PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:

> Whenever you add to the table, you now need to modify both the new
> entry and the terminator to get it right.
> Nor (IMO) is it obvious that it is a terminator or why it is
> different to all the other entries in the structure. A field such as
> sb_dummy or sb_pad before the terminator is fairly obvious, and it
> means that you don't need to modify the table terminator every time
> the superblock gets extended.
> That way the code stays more consistent over time, diffs are smaller
> and neater, and you can see at a simple diff just how the features
> have been added over time (like I did this morning).....

nothing in the code is terribly obvious.. please add comments however you
decide to fix it :)

and really, now that this is out in the wild, maybe sb_features3 instead
of padding is appropriate, and check both for the attr2 bit...? :(

i'm trying to figure out what the kernel upgrade path is for fc6 users who
have an extra-padded-flipped features2/attr2 filesystem.  :(


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>