xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Aug 2003 23:48:30 +0200
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:48:30 +0200
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1061586133.6479.6.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>
References: <20030822201012.GA19026@averell> <1061586133.6479.6.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:10, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > (mea culpa). The error return was broken too, it would return -2,
> > not -1 for errors. Makes no difference in the callers, they never check
> > for -1, but is still better to conform to the spec.
> 
> Thanks Andi, this did have to happen one day after 1.3 didn't it.

;-)

I don't think it's very critical, From a quick look none of the
callers ever pass in anything more than 32bits.

It's used for the number of super block fields, which is < 32
and for some bmap, which seems to be limited to 21 bits by 
the extractor function.

-Andi


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