From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:55:37 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] Large (> 16TiB) volumes revisited In-Reply-To: References: <20100623004937.GB20090@mail.oracle.com> <20100623013633.GC20090@mail.oracle.com> <20100624001437.GF20090@mail.oracle.com> Message-ID: <20100624005537.GG20090@mail.oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 05:45:13PM -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > Oh, one trivial thing I forgot to mention: I changed the errno for > the failure cases from EINVAL to EFBIG since that is what ext4 uses. That's fine. > My next step will be to test this... But what is next after that? Do > I send this as a "[PATCH] ..." to ocfs2-devel and linux-kernel, or do > I just send to ocfs2-devel and one of you passes it on? Yes, you send it as a [PATCH] to ocfs2-devel and linux-kernel. It will still go through me, but we want the process to be followed. > +/* Check to make sure entire volume is addressable on this system. */ > +static int ocfs2_check_addressable(struct ocfs2_super *osb, > + struct ocfs2_dinode *di) > +{ > + int status = 0; > + const u32 clusters = le32_to_cpu(di->i_clusters); > + const u64 max_block = ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(osb->sb, clusters) - 1; These don't need to be const. Sure, they don't change, but you're not signifying anything special with them (like passing them to a subfunction or something). And you don't really need the clusters temporary. u64 max_block = ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(osb->sb, le32_to_cpu(di->i_clusters)) - 1; Joel -- The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers. Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127