Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Warren Turkal
2009-01-06T23:27:20Z

Just to clarify, by "previous code", I meant I linked to it. It is not
the code I used for the patch.

wt

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org> wrote:
> I have a drive at home with the condition. So empirically, it can happen.
>
> I would also argue that having a journal bit set and then saying that
> the journal info block is at 0 makes no sense anyhow since the first
> 1024 bytes of the volume must be empty on HFS+.
>
> And, I found the previous code from Apple saying that a 0 in the
> journal_info_block field indicated that there was no journal.
>
> Is there anything else I should be doing?
>
> wt
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:17:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> > I'm pretty sure we already had a version better than that in your
>>> > tree on the list. But I've lost track and we should just restart
>>> > the review cycle on -fsdevel.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I have the three hfs patches:
>>>
>>> hfsplus-identify-journal-info-block-in-volume-header.patch
>>> hfsplus-fix-journal-detection.patch
>>> hfs-add-basic-export-support.patch
>>>
>>> in a holding pattern awaiting a second round, due to laggy, incomplete
>>> and confusing noises from various people. It all needs a revisit.
>>
>> The first two are not for me to decide. They look fine code-wise,
>> but IIRC Roman had some issues with wether the condition should be
>> possible at all.
>>
>> The third one is where I requested a respin, and I'm pretty sure I've
>> seen a version with some improvement over the one in your tree. Let's
>> get the latests version back on -fsdevel and review it again.
>>
>> The one in your tree certainly is not ready.
>>
>