[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061125092346.GA4241@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:23:46 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To: Valerie Clement <Valerie.Clement@...l.net>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] BIG_BG: block group descriptor modifications
On Nov 24, 2006 17:48 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> @@ -133,6 +133,9 @@ struct ext4_group_desc
> __le32 bg_block_bitmap_hi; /* Blocks bitmap block MSB */
> __le32 bg_inode_bitmap_hi; /* Inodes bitmap block MSB */
> __le32 bg_inode_table_hi; /* Inodes table block MSB */
> + __le16 bg_free_blocks_count_hi; /* Free blocks count MSB */
> + __le16 bg_free_inodes_count_hi; /* Free inodes count MSB */
> + __le16 bg_used_dirs_count_hi; /* Directories count MSB */
> };
Does the ext4 code already avoid using "sizeof(struct ext4_group_desc)"
or "sizeof(*gdp)" everywhere? Otherwise this is very dangerous.
Also note that the on-disk layout of this struct in e2fsprogs is a bit
incorrect - it has the above 3 __u16, but then immediately __u32 bg_reserved
so those fields are padded incorrectly. I think it isn't a fatal problem,
just something to be aware of and fix.
> +#define EXT4_READ_SPLIT_LE32(__sb, __field) \
> + ((__u32)le16_to_cpu(__field) + \
> + (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE((__sb), EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT) ? \
> + (__u32)le16_to_cpu(__field##_hi) << 16 : 0))
Is it better to make this INCOMPAT_64BIT or s_desc_size? Does INCOMPAT_64BIT
always imply s_desc_size > 32? Hmm, I guess it does, or we have no place to
store the _hi part of the block addresses for a group.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists