[PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers - Kernel

This is a discussion on [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers - Kernel ; Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov --- Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better in this way Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c ================================================== ================= --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400 +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

  1. [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

    Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
    ---

    Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch

    Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better
    in this way

    Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c
    ================================================== =================
    --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400
    @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    }
    if (epos->bh) {
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset);
    else
    udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    aed = (struct allocExtDesc *)epos->bh->b_data;
    le32_add_cpu(&aed->lengthAllocDescs, adsize);
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    epos->offset + (inc ? 0 : adsize));
    else
    @@ -1802,7 +1802,7 @@ int8_t udf_write_aext(struct inode *inod

    if (epos->bh) {
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201) {
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION) {
    struct allocExtDesc *aed =
    (struct allocExtDesc *)epos->bh->b_data;
    udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    @@ -1968,7 +1968,7 @@ int8_t udf_delete_aext(struct inode *ino
    aed = (struct allocExtDesc *)oepos.bh->b_data;
    le32_add_cpu(&aed->lengthAllocDescs, -(2 * adsize));
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    udf_update_tag(oepos.bh->b_data,
    oepos.offset - (2 * adsize));
    else
    @@ -1985,7 +1985,7 @@ int8_t udf_delete_aext(struct inode *ino
    aed = (struct allocExtDesc *)oepos.bh->b_data;
    le32_add_cpu(&aed->lengthAllocDescs, -adsize);
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    udf_update_tag(oepos.bh->b_data,
    epos.offset - adsize);
    else
    Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/truncate.c
    ================================================== =================
    --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/truncate.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/truncate.c 2008-04-12 23:31:54.000000000 +0400
    @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ void udf_discard_prealloc(struct inode *
    cpu_to_le32(epos.offset -
    sizeof(struct allocExtDesc));
    if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    udf_update_tag(epos.bh->b_data, epos.offset);
    else
    udf_update_tag(epos.bh->b_data,
    @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static void udf_update_alloc_ext_desc(st
    int len = sizeof(struct allocExtDesc);

    aed->lengthAllocDescs = cpu_to_le32(lenalloc);
    - if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) || sbi->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    + if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) || sbi->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    len += lenalloc;

    udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, len);
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

    On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
    > ---
    >
    > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch
    >
    > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better
    > in this way
    >
    > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c
    > ================================================== =================
    > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400
    > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    > }
    > if (epos->bh) {
    > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset);
    > else
    > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,

    I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future
    when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION.

    Marcin
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

    [Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:29PM +0200]
    | On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
    | > ---
    | >
    | > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch
    | >
    | > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better
    | > in this way
    | >
    | > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c
    | > ================================================== =================
    | > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    | > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400
    | > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    | > }
    | > if (epos->bh) {
    | > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    | > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    | > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset);
    | > else
    | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    | I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future
    | when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    | it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION.
    |
    | Marcin
    |

    well, if someone add support the writting UDF > 2.01 it will require
    additional switches/analisys anyway and saving these hard-coded-numbers
    would not help.

    - Cyrill -
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

    On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:22PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    > [Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:29PM +0200]
    > | On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    > | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
    > | > ---
    > | >
    > | > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch
    > | >
    > | > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better
    > | > in this way
    > | >
    > | > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c
    > | > ================================================== =================
    > | > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    > | > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400
    > | > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    > | > }
    > | > if (epos->bh) {
    > | > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    > | > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    > | > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    > | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset);
    > | > else
    > | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    > | I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future
    > | when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    > | it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION.
    > |
    > | Marcin
    > |
    >
    > well, if someone add support the writting UDF > 2.01 it will require
    > additional switches/analisys anyway and saving these hard-coded-numbers
    > would not help.


    Yes, but these values don't correlate with UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION - it's
    simple coincidence. If you really don't like these numbers add another
    constant.

    Marcin
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers

    [Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:56:10PM +0200]
    | On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:22PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    | > [Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:29PM +0200]
    | > | On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    | > | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
    | > | > ---
    | > | >
    | > | > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch
    | > | >
    | > | > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better
    | > | > in this way
    | > | >
    | > | > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c
    | > | > ================================================== =================
    | > | > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400
    | > | > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400
    | > | > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode,
    | > | > }
    | > | > if (epos->bh) {
    | > | > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) ||
    | > | > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201)
    | > | > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    | > | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset);
    | > | > else
    | > | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data,
    | > | I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future
    | > | when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION)
    | > | it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION.
    | > |
    | > | Marcin
    | > |
    | >
    | > well, if someone add support the writting UDF > 2.01 it will require
    | > additional switches/analisys anyway and saving these hard-coded-numbers
    | > would not help.
    |
    | Yes, but these values don't correlate with UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION - it's
    | simple coincidence. If you really don't like these numbers add another
    | constant.
    |
    | Marcin
    |

    Ugh! You're right, thanks Jan, drop them, sorry

    - Cyrill -
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

+ Reply to Thread