[PATCH] VFS: remove warning about invalid s_maxbytes values

[PATCH] VFS: remove warning about invalid s_maxbytes values

[Jeff Layton]

This warning should have been removed in 2.6.34. We missed that by a
few releases, so we should be OK to remove this now.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
 fs/super.c |   10 ----------
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 7e9dd4c..2ed4a88 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1009,16 +1009,6 @@ vfs_kern_mount(struct file_system_type *type, int flags, const char *name, void
 	if (error)
 		goto out_sb;
 
-	/*
-	 * filesystems should never set s_maxbytes larger than MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
-	 * but s_maxbytes was an unsigned long long for many releases. Throw
-	 * this warning for a little while to try and catch filesystems that
-	 * violate this rule. This warning should be either removed or
-	 * converted to a BUG() in 2.6.34.
-	 */
-	WARN((mnt->mnt_sb->s_maxbytes < 0), "%s set sb->s_maxbytes to "
-		"negative value (%lld)\n", type->name, mnt->mnt_sb->s_maxbytes);
-
 	mnt->mnt_mountpoint = mnt->mnt_root;
 	mnt->mnt_parent = mnt;
 	up_write(&mnt->mnt_sb->s_umount);
-- 
1.7.4

Re: [PATCH] VFS: remove warning about invalid s_maxbytes values

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:12:43AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This warning should have been removed in 2.6.34. We missed that by a
> few releases, so we should be OK to remove this now.

Why can't we just kee it?

Re: [PATCH] VFS: remove warning about invalid s_maxbytes values

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:16:56 -0400
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:12:43AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > This warning should have been removed in 2.6.34. We missed that by a
> > few releases, so we should be OK to remove this now.
> 
> Why can't we just kee it?
> 

I suppose we could. It doesn't really harm anything. The idea at the
time was to do this for a few releases and then remove the warning.

If we do that though we should probably fix the comment. Should I just
spin up a patch to do that instead?

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>