From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with SMTP id p2V5m880118726 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:48:09 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BC0723904C2 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8JdudsxV8Cv2sK1M for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:51:14 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix extent format buffer allocation size Message-ID: <20110331055114.GC30279@dastard> References: <1301453521-5614-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20110330093333.GA32582@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110330093333.GA32582@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:33:34AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + xfs_bmbt_rec_t *ext_buffer; > > + > > + ext_buffer = kmem_alloc(XFS_IFORK_SIZE(ip, whichfork), > > If the fork size be the minimum of XFS_IFORK_SIZE and the if_bytes > value? I thought about that, but I don't think it makes any difference. If there are no delalloc extents, then XFS_IFORK_SIZE and ifp->if_bytes are identical when the fork is in extent format. If there are delalloc extents, then XFS_IFORK_SIZE() is the one we want. Hence I don't think we need to even consider the value of ifp->if_bytes at all here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs