[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C6C02414-34D1-426D-B27E-0D475875674B@dilger.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 03:38:10 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: c17828 <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] e2fsck: INODE64 high part is more important then
LUFID
On May 4, 2018, at 1:09 AM, c17828 <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com>
>
> Keep the INO64 field over LUFID, since it is both smaller,
> and more important.
>
> Lustre-bug: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-9309
> Signed-off-by: Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com>
> ---
> e2fsck/pass2.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> @@ -399,6 +408,17 @@ void ext2_fix_dirent_dirdata(struct ext2_dir_entry *de)
> }
> }
>
> + /* Keep the INO64 field over LUFID, since it is both smaller,
> + * and more important.
> + */
> + if (inop && (ext2_get_dirdata_field_size(de, new_flag) >= 5) &&
Wasn't there a structure added to hold the inode64 value? That should be
used here for sizeof(ext2fs_dirdata_inode64) (or whatever it is named)
instead of "5", which doesn't pass very much information to the reader.
I don't see it in this patch, so it might have only been added in the
kernel part of the dirdata patch. It should also be used in e2fsprogs.
> + !(new_flag & EXT2_DIRENT_INODE)) {
> + new_flag &= ~EXT2_DIRENT_LUFID;
> + new_flag |= EXT2_DIRENT_INODE;
> + memmove(startp, inop,
> + ext2_get_dirdata_field_size(de, new_flag));
> + }
> +
> de->name_len = name_len | file_type | (new_flag << 8);
> }
>
> --
> 2.14.3 (Apple Git-98)
>
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists