From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757648AbYDMLv1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:51:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752089AbYDMLvS (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:51:18 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:57933 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751223AbYDMLvR (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:51:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=CpjNLmtPdRRiFHEoagRqGkuvTmPoRLO6FzX7TEFXB6JcJAbgqAFNe2LMWaAOvkE4TfES2xpeRNsIbhDpDrTtG4HAoAimYwSogql4lXE17c8qSthYzFtHtQJ0xkeOh+SOk8Sp42g4cb9D0GVv2htPH4yGy6C0qcmx/TtXqDgqQws= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:50:29 +0200 From: Marcin Slusarz To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Jan Kara , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers Message-ID: <20080413115025.GA6488@joi> References: <20080412194008.GB8388@cvg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080412194008.GB8388@cvg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov > --- > > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch > > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better > in this way ;) > > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400 > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400 > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode, > } > if (epos->bh) { > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) || > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201) > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION) > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset); > else > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION) it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION. Marcin