| To: | Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] speculative preallocation quota throttling |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:50:15 +1100 |
| Cc: | Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5127D060.5050806@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1361373019-30891-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <5127D060.5050806@xxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:09:04PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > -- since I am being a grouch ... --- > I wish I had caught in the review for commit a1e16c26 that > xfs_iomap_eof_prealloc_initial_size() is returning an int rather > than xfs_fsblock_t for consistency. Which is a bug, not an inconsistency. It means that alloc_blocks may not return the right thing at the 2^31/2^32 FSB boundary. Don't grouch like you can't possibly fix it, just send a patch. :P The code isn't upstream yet, so we've got the entire 3.9-rc cycle to fix it... :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstests 298: check ctime updates for setfacl, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] xfs: add support for large btree blocks, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] speculative preallocation quota throttling, Mark Tinguely |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] speculative preallocation quota throttling, Brian Foster |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |