[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874n7zy2jy.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:23:29 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.sahrawat@...sung.com,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fat: add i_disksize to represent uninitialized size
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/cache.c b/fs/fat/cache.c
>>> index 91ad9e1..37572c2 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fat/cache.c
>>> +++ b/fs/fat/cache.c
>>> @@ -329,10 +329,10 @@ int fat_bmap(struct inode *inode, sector_t sector,
>>> sector_t *phys,
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * ->mmu_private can access on only allocation path.
>>> + * ->i_disksize can access on only allocation path.
>>> * (caller must hold ->i_mutex)
>>> */
>>> - last_block = (MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private + (blocksize - 1))
>>> + last_block = (MSDOS_I(inode)->i_disksize + (blocksize - 1))
>>> >> blocksize_bits;
>>> if (sector >= last_block)
>>> return 0;
>>
>> Hm, bmap() ioctl returns between ->mmu_private and i_disksize? I'm not
>> checking other FSes what does...
> I added this code after checking such behaviour from ext4.
OK. I will check with it. BTW, comment should say the both
(i.e. ->mmu_private and ->i_disksize must under ->i_mutex).
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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