[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162937397.3689.5.camel@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:09:57 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: J?rn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make last_inode counter in new_inode 32-bit on kernels
that offer x86 compatability
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:13:00PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > + /* ino must not collide with any ino assigned in the loop below. Set
> > + it to the highest possible inode number */
> > + inode->i_ino = (1 << (sizeof(s->s_lastino) * 8)) - 1;
>
> This really isn't a good idiom to be using; GCC now takes this to mean
> "I can reformat your hard drive because you did something outside the
> spec".
>
> Try instead:
> + inode->i_ino = -1;
>
The problem there is that on platforms with a 64-bit ino_t, this will be
too large to fit in a 32-bit field and we'll end up with the same
EOVERFLOW problem. Is there a more correct way to make it size
appropriately given the different possible sizes of s_lastino?
I suppose we could just set it to 0xffffffff and hope that that is "big
enough" for most cases.
-- Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists