[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <097a01c74a9c$d62fa9f0$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:46:22 +0900
From: "Takashi Sato" <sho@...s.nec.co.jp>
To: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@...hat.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Move the file data to the new blocks
Hi,
>>> +ext4_ext_replace_branches(struct inode *org_inode, struct inode *dest_inode,
>>> + pgoff_t from_page, pgoff_t dest_from_page,
>>> + pgoff_t count_page, unsigned long *delete_start) +{
>>> + struct ext4_ext_path *org_path = NULL;
>>> + struct ext4_ext_path *dest_path = NULL;
>>> + struct ext4_extent *oext, *dext;
>>> + struct ext4_extent tmp_ext;
>>> + int err = 0;
>>> + int depth;
>>> + unsigned long from, count, dest_off, diff, replaced_count = 0;
>>
>> These should be sector_t, shouldn't they?
>
> At some point should we start using blkcnt_t properly? (block-in[-large]-file, not
> block-in[-large]-device?) I think that's what it was introduced for, although it's not
> in wide use at this point.
>
> I guess the type really isn't used anywhere else; just in the inode's i_blocks. Hmm.
On reflection, I think we should use ext4_fsblk_t in this case, because
some ext4 codes such as ext4_ext_get_blocks() use it.
int ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
ext4_fsblk_t iblock,
So I would like to change "unsigned long" into ext4_fsblk_t in my next patch.
Cheers, Takashi
-
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