lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:14:20 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <>
To:	Kazuya Mio <>
Cc:	ext4 <>, Theodore Tso <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH V3 1/4] ext4: add EXT4_IOC_CONTROL_PA to create/discard inode PA

On 2010-11-30, at 23:06, Kazuya Mio wrote:
> EXT4_IOC_CONTROL_PA allows to create new inode PA based on the specified
> range, or to discard all inode PAs in the target inode.
> -----------
> #define EXT4_IOC_CONTROL_PA	_IOWR('f', 16, struct ext4_prealloc_info)
> struct ext4_prealloc_info {
> 	__u64 pi_pstart; /* physical offset for the start of the PA from
> 			  * the beginning of the file (in/out) */
> 	__u32 pi_lstart; /* logical offset for the start of the PA from
> 			  * the beginning of the disk (in/out) */

Is the comment here wrong, or do I misunderstand that there is a 64-bit offset for the file, and only a 32-bit offset for the disk?  It doesn't make sense to create a new API that only has a 32-bit offset for the disk, since ext4 is nearly supporting 64-bit filesystem blocks.

Looking at the patch, it seems that pi_pstart is indeed the physical offset, so it should be 64-bit, and it just appears that the comment is incorrect.

Cheers, Andreas

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists