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 721027FA9 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:41:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506968F8033 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id sCy5mBFTlytMymN0 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:41:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:41:02 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: struct xfs_sb is no longer tied to the on-disk format Message-ID: <20150202084102.GA28121@infradead.org> References: <1422826983-29570-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1422826983-29570-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1422826983-29570-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > /* > - * Superblock - in core version. Must match the ondisk version below. > - * Must be padded to 64 bit alignment. > - */ > -typedef struct xfs_sb { > - __uint32_t sb_magicnum; /* magic number == XFS_SB_MAGIC */ > - __uint32_t sb_blocksize; /* logical block size, bytes */ > -static inline int xfs_sb_version_hasfinobt(xfs_sb_t *sbp) > +static inline int xfs_sb_version_hasfinobt(struct xfs_sb *sbp) So xfs_format.h now requires struct xfs_sb to be defined before it can be included? I guess we need to move these macros around as well. > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.h > index 2b830c2..a02236b 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.h > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.h > @@ -61,6 +61,87 @@ struct xfs_mount; > struct xfs_buftarg; > struct block_device; > > +/* > + * Superblock - in core version. This does not have ot match the size and shape > + * of the on-disk superblock, but must contain all the fields that we use in the > + * on-disk superblock. > + */ > +struct xfs_sb { Is this really the right header? xfs_super.h only really is for bits related to linux super block operastions. I'd expect to move it close to stuct xfs_mount, and maybe even merge it into that in the long run. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs