Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

[Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:22PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:29PM +0200]
> | On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
> | > ---
> | > 
> | > 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
> | 
> 
> well, if someone add support the writting UDF > 2.01 it will require
> additional switches/analisys anyway and saving these hard-coded-numbers
> would not help.

Yes, but these values don't correlate with UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION - it's
simple coincidence. If you really don't like these numbers add another
constant.

Marcin