From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759237AbYDMN5S (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:57:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757434AbYDMN5L (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:57:11 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:58512 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757370AbYDMN5K (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:57:10 -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=TBdNHObdK/HP6ho0sQRdLIT991GePuXDiTCKx1ksrlAEeZPVz2sN0iKuGGa+8ZC6FrFhh7KCedzuXS8NAJSyfN4d+gnpX2fOckjQBCFbM3datvgbRSpcYEJoljvv99Dmidx4vnHurguSw1GR9CvnoNAmrd/VKDe0qds8oWQhltI= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:56:10 +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: <20080413135606.GA6935@joi> References: <20080412194008.GB8388@cvg> <20080413115025.GA6488@joi> <20080413120622.GA7670@cvg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080413120622.GA7670@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 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 > | > --- > | > > | > 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