On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:20 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
> > use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're
> > wrong.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > btrfs-image.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/btrfs-image.c b/btrfs-image.c
> > index 188291c..dca7a28 100644
> > --- a/btrfs-image.c
> > +++ b/btrfs-image.c
> > @@ -469,6 +469,16 @@ static int read_data_extent(struct metadump_struct *md,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int is_sb_offset(u64 offset) {
> > + switch (offset) {
> > + case 65536:
> > + case 67108864:
> > + case 274877906944:
>
> Using btrfs_sb_offset() and an if statement would produce the same code
> and would be more readable.
It was there originally, but this function is called for each block and
I've optimized it a bit right away. I'll add a comment.
> Additionally, the last huge number will cause a warning on 32-bit
> systems, I assume.
No warning with -m32 -Wall.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
