From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487437F50 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:50:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296858F8035 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bBUdECfPomlpI4zN for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:50:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:50:15 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] speculative preallocation quota throttling Message-ID: <20130223015015.GH26081@dastard> References: <1361373019-30891-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <5127D060.5050806@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5127D060.5050806@sgi.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Mark Tinguely Cc: Brian Foster , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:09:04PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > -- since I am being a grouch ... --- > I wish I had caught in the review for commit a1e16c26 that > xfs_iomap_eof_prealloc_initial_size() is returning an int rather > than xfs_fsblock_t for consistency. Which is a bug, not an inconsistency. It means that alloc_blocks may not return the right thing at the 2^31/2^32 FSB boundary. Don't grouch like you can't possibly fix it, just send a patch. :P The code isn't upstream yet, so we've got the entire 3.9-rc cycle to fix it... :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs