[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120305155939.GE21356@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:39 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Fan Yong <yong.fan@...mcloud.com>,
bfields@...hat.com, sandeen@...hat.com,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to
usage type
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:21:48PM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/hash.c b/fs/ext4/hash.c
> index ac8f168..fa8e491 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/hash.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/hash.c
> @@ -200,8 +200,8 @@ int ext4fs_dirhash(const char *name, int len, struct dx_hash_info *hinfo)
> return -1;
> }
> hash = hash & ~1;
> - if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF << 1))
> - hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF-1) << 1;
> + if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_32BIT << 1))
> + hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_32BIT - 1) << 1;
> hinfo->hash = hash;
> hinfo->minor_hash = minor_hash;
> return 0;
Is there a reason why we don't need to avoid the collsion with the
64-bit EOF value as well? i.e., I think we also need to add:
if (hash == (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_64BIT << 1))
hash = (EXT4_HTREE_EOF_64BIT - 1) << 1;
- Ted
--
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