Re: [PATCH 15/15][e2fsprogs] 64-bit mke2fs cleanup

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@us.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:23:45 +0200
> Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
>> /*
>>  * Set the fs block count
>>  */
>> void ext2fs_blocks_count_set(struct ext2_super_block *super, blk64_t blk)
>> {
>>         super->s_blocks_count = blk;
>>         if (super->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT)
>>            super->s_blocks_count_hi = (__u64) blk >> 32;
>> }
>> 
>> EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT is not set so the upper bits just get
>> ignored.
>> 
>> MfG
>>         Goswin
>> 
>> PS: Should functions that chop off upper bits like that make sure they
>> are 0?
>
> I think this is something that need to be cheched at fsck since having
> these be non-zero on a non-64-bit FS should be pointing to file system
> corruption.  Not sure if its something that need to be done every time
> we set a value on the lower bit only though.

I ment checking the blk64_t blk < 2^32. And yes then the function has
to return an error code EINVAL.

But they should be zeroed out as well in the superblock just in case.

> We could add error code here but that means that the users of the
> routine need to handle the error code.  Determining now if we need to
> return errcode_t here now would avoid the need to change the API later.
>
> Ted.  Any comment on this one?
>
> -JRS

MfG
        Goswin