From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6364AC282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4712B205F4 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729677AbgAHRVj (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:21:39 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:50368 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729516AbgAHRVi (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:21:38 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B37DB68BFE; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:21:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:21:35 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Namjae Jeon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, hch@lst.de, sj1557.seo@samsung.com, linkinjeon@gmail.com, pali.rohar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/13] exfat: add super block operations Message-ID: <20200108172135.GC13388@lst.de> References: <20200102082036.29643-1-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> <20200102082036.29643-3-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200102082036.29643-3-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Looks good, modulo a few nitpicks below: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:20:25PM +0800, Namjae Jeon wrote: > +static int exfat_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf) > +{ > + struct super_block *sb = dentry->d_sb; > + struct exfat_sb_info *sbi = EXFAT_SB(sb); > + unsigned long long id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev); > + if (sbi->used_clusters == ~0u) { Various other places use UINT_MAX here instead. Maybe it makes sense to add a EXFAT_CLUSTERS_UNTRACKED or similar define and use that in all places? > + if ((new_flag == VOL_DIRTY) && (!buffer_dirty(sbi->pbr_bh))) No need for both sets of inner braces. > +static bool is_exfat(struct pbr *pbr) > +{ > + int i = MUST_BE_ZERO_LEN; > + > + do { > + if (pbr->bpb.f64.res_zero[i - 1]) > + break; > + } while (--i); > + return i ? false : true; > +} I find the MUST_BE_ZERO_LEN a little weird here. Maybe that should be something like PBP64_RESERVED_LEN? Also I think this could be simplified by just using memchr_inv in the caller if (memchr_inv(pbr->bpb.f64.res_zero, 0, sizeof(pbr->bpb.f64.res_zero))) ret = -EINVAL; goto free_bh; } > + /* set maximum file size for exFAT */ > + sb->s_maxbytes = 0x7fffffffffffffffLL; That this is setting the max size is pretty obvious. Maybe the comment should be updated to mention how this max file size is calculated?