[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5A9C7BCF-AA25-494F-9C64-8A6553B44395@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:43:08 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ext4: Drop i_state_flags on architectures with 64-bit longs
On 2011-01-04, at 18:01, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> +#if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64)
> +EXT4_INODE_BIT_FNS(state, state_flags, 0)
> +#define EXT4_CLEAR_STATE_FLAGS(ei) (ei)->i_state_flags = 0
> +#else
> +EXT4_INODE_BIT_FNS(state, flags, 32)
> +#define EXT4_CLEAR_STATE_FLAGS(ei) (ei)->i_flags = 0
This looks like it will clear all of the i_flags values, instead of just the
state flags. It should probably be something like:
#define EXT4_CLEAR_STATE_FLAGS(ei) (ei)->i_flags &= 0xffffffffULL;
> @@ -1009,6 +1009,7 @@ got:
> * extent flag on newly created directory and file only if -o extent
> * mount option is specified
> */
> + EXT4_CLEAR_STATE_FLAGS(ei);
> ei->i_flags =
> ext4_mask_flags(mode, EXT4_I(dir)->i_flags & EXT4_FL_INHERITED);
> ei->i_file_acl = 0;
> @@ -1027,7 +1028,6 @@ got:
> inode->i_generation = sbi->s_next_generation++;
> spin_unlock(&sbi->s_next_gen_lock);
>
> - ei->i_state_flags = 0;
It looks like you have compensated for the above by changing the
code here, but I think it is risky/confusing if clearing the state
flags has a side-effect on 64-bit arches, that doesn't exist on
32-bit arches. It looks like a bug waiting to happen...
Cheers, Andreas
--
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