[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090122161104.GF9732@hack.private>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:11:04 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...hat.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Btrfs: use BTRFS_VOL_NAME_MAX for struct
btrfs_ioctl_vol_args
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:04:08AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 21:12 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:03:37AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:57:32PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I found userspace tool, btrfsctl, uses BTRFS_VOL_NAME_MAX, and
>> >> it also looks that this one is more proper.
>> >>
>> >> Kill BTRFS_PATH_NAME_MAX since no one will use it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Nope, BTRFS_PATH_NAME_MAX is specifically used for the ioctl stuff, makes the
>> >arguments 4k aligned, this patch is incorrect. Thanks,
>>
>> Ok, then what is BTRFS_VOL_NAME_MAX? :)
>
>Right now it is only used in the progs. The disk format doesn't really
>have a max there, it is just to keep names usable. But, we should add a
>check in the kernel ioctl side, are you interested in sending a patch
>for it?
>
Yup, I will do.
Thanks.
--
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves, contend in vain."
--
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