[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111205164015.GD32031@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:40:15 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>,
Martin K Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/22] ext4: Verify and calculate checksums for extent
tree blocks
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:27:25PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> /*
> + * This is the extent tail on-disk structure.
> + * All other extent structures are 12 bytes long. It turns out that
> + * block_size % 12 >= 4 for all valid block sizes (1k, 2k, 4k).
More generally, block_size % 12 is >= 4 for all powers of 2 greater
than 12 bytes. I'd probably remove (1k, 2k, 4k) because that might
scare people who might say, "hey! I'm using a 16k block size on my
HPC system running on a Power or Itanium box --- am I going to be OK?".
Valid block sizes go up to the page size of the hardware in question...
- Ted
--
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