On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:12:28AM +0100, Sebastian Thorarensen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Sterba wrote:
> > > +static int ext2_free_block_range(ext2_filsys fs, u64 block, int num)
> > > +{
> > > + BUG_ON(block != (blk_t)block);
> >
> > What's the purpose of this? Some kind of overflow check?
>
> ext2_free_block contains the same check, so I put one in
> ext2_free_block_range for consistency. I assumed it was an overflow check
> as blk_t is u32.
Ok, keep it there so we don't forget. A better error handling is
desirable though.
> > Otherwise looks good. If you're going to resend, please split the patch
> > into one logical change per patch:
> >
> > 1) generic and preparatory changes, like moving the check_node to
> > utils.c, moving the mkfs default leaf size
> >
> > 2) the changes to convert, ie. most of this patch minus 1 and 3
> >
> > 3) the tests
>
> Thanks for the review! Will resend with the fixes when I know whether
> blocks[] must be aligned to nodesize or not.
As mentioned in the other mail, current implementation is fine.
--
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
