From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH] MD: Bitmap version cleanup. Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:14:55 +1000 Message-ID: <20120410161455.49acaeea@notabene.brown> References: <1326614986-30166-1-git-send-email-andrey.warkentin@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/QBUc4wtiAEPxsfv_P1P++yY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1326614986-30166-1-git-send-email-andrey.warkentin@gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrei Warkentin Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Brassow List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/QBUc4wtiAEPxsfv_P1P++yY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:09:46 -0500 Andrei Warkentin wrote: > bitmap_new_disk_sb() would still create V3 bitmap superblock > with host-endian layout. >=20 > Perhaps I'm confused, but shouldn't bitmap_new_disk_sb() be > creating a V4 bitmap superblock instead, that is portable, > as per comment in bitmap.h? BITMAP_MINOR was also unused. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin > --- > drivers/md/bitmap.c | 3 --- > drivers/md/bitmap.h | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/drivers/md/bitmap.c b/drivers/md/bitmap.c > index 045e086..e786da6 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/bitmap.c > +++ b/drivers/md/bitmap.c > @@ -568,9 +568,6 @@ static int bitmap_new_disk_sb(struct bitmap *bitmap) > bitmap->events_cleared =3D bitmap->mddev->events; > sb->events_cleared =3D cpu_to_le64(bitmap->mddev->events); > =20 > - bitmap->flags |=3D BITMAP_HOSTENDIAN; > - sb->version =3D cpu_to_le32(BITMAP_MAJOR_HOSTENDIAN); > - > kunmap_atomic(sb); > =20 > return 0; > diff --git a/drivers/md/bitmap.h b/drivers/md/bitmap.h > index a15436d..af588ac 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/bitmap.h > +++ b/drivers/md/bitmap.h > @@ -13,8 +13,6 @@ > #define BITMAP_MAJOR_HI 4 > #define BITMAP_MAJOR_HOSTENDIAN 3 > =20 > -#define BITMAP_MINOR 39 > - > /* > * in-memory bitmap: > * Yes, you are exactly correct. I've applied that patch (and less than three months since you sent it - not bad [no, not bad: terrible!]) Thanks, NeilBrown --Sig_/QBUc4wtiAEPxsfv_P1P++yY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBT4PP3znsnt1WYoG5AQJmLw/+J/yz0XvcNep+llkD619dwjlmx5N7dxdg MpLDwnsIegh64bPKVTYUaY7dhgt/ADFg8YeUWmwzBV8EjjN/9ej9wVY4hBDr7BVR Dc8tj+HhKrdL/6qUWbfNBX1hzIwTtnaD1/wtDrafuqaS/VpGXCVR7c7kgx6Q+x5X MwKNGCX6WEQQ3OtPq+GDKXVXrDqWLiwCwYsCMjvrl80GsYVv1u1g05NH1rKDn/DY fYhCwxTc+jrNnZ/P/jxSEXz957eAbq0HCzyOv+glG4GCIVpThCJSL/I77c9i9gYN tmQNXZa5YC1OcVHKrlwaZTtJbIBc8OegjM1z4ZZ3NuHmwy2Ifaxs+9JVjCgbZ/5l mjYGMwmkgFprn9fs2gJt6EItItzDQve22wq5NB/W3Cec0sWANpYjIbq5jrlV6gPT tqWO80wNThCGWMAIZyax29tqqbdXrIfbXWgqdW17QFViphns+15ETd6AsJwNvVKA J0pIxKCQjRi8rZ5MW7vdVWlvV6a0tS4NCPLb2iUWKL1Nydqpx8KM4gwp6SshOgzH bOgduA3oxQ0XwJqfixypnZUzXNCcJ/B+ABm/vtbvI1sgtFBz19juX0fxStSkabC3 FfG+yuKL2WGmCys5CgGSvOODKkpj7nQZGK2GOOAmVZbGzMS5cghYfq/lEeV62N57 UgEelN+0+p8= =CA75 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/QBUc4wtiAEPxsfv_P1P++yY--