Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 19:49 +0100, Daniel Aragonés wrote:
> According to your suggestions, I have modified the patch for better
> formatting and other. Testing is going on fine. Here comes the patch
> attached as textfile V3_2dot6_patch3.txt
Looks much better! Thanks for doing this. Few comments below. Perhaps
you should send this to Andrew for inclusion in -mm after that?
> @@ -107,15 +112,23 @@
> p = kaddr+offset;
> limit = kaddr + minix_last_byte(inode, n) - chunk_size;
> for ( ; p <= limit ; p = minix_next_entry(p, sbi)) {
> + minix3_dirent *de3 = (minix3_dirent *)p;
> minix_dirent *de = (minix_dirent *)p;
> - if (de->inode) {
> + if (sbi->s_version == MINIX_V3) {
> + name_ptr = de3->name;
> + inode_ptr = de3->inode;
> + } else {
> + name_ptr = de->name;
> + inode_ptr = de->inode;
> + }
Some formatting issues above.
> @@ -157,9 +170,11 @@
> unsigned long n;
> unsigned long npages = dir_pages(dir);
> struct page *page = NULL;
> + struct minix3_dir_entry *de3;
> struct minix_dir_entry *de;
> -
> *res_page = NULL;
> + char *name_ptr;
> + __u32 inode_ptr;
Minor nitpick, I think you can omit the "ptr" prefix.
> @@ -301,11 +348,15 @@
> memset(kaddr, 0, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
>
> de = (struct minix_dir_entry *)kaddr;
> + de3 = (struct minix3_dir_entry *)kaddr;
> de->inode = inode->i_ino;
> - strcpy(de->name,".");
> + de3->inode = inode->i_ino;
> + (sbi->s_version == MINIX_V3) ? strcpy(de3->name,".") : strcpy(de->name,".");
> de = minix_next_entry(de, sbi);
> + de3 = minix_next_entry(de3, sbi);
> de->inode = dir->i_ino;
> - strcpy(de->name,"..");
> + de3->inode = dir->i_ino;
> + (sbi->s_version == MINIX_V3) ? strcpy(de3->name,"..") : strcpy(de->name,"..");
if-else is preferred.
> @@ -322,9 +373,12 @@
> struct page *page = NULL;
> unsigned long i, npages = dir_pages(inode);
> struct minix_sb_info *sbi = minix_sb(inode->i_sb);
> + char *name_ptr;
> + __u32 inode_ptr;
Same nitpick as above.
> +/*
> + * V3 minix super-block data on disk
> + */
> +struct minix3_super_block {
> + __u16 s_ninodes;
> + __u16 s_nzones;
> + __u16 s_pad0;
> + __u16 s_imap_blocks;
> + __u16 s_zmap_blocks;
> + __u16 s_firstdatazone;
> + __u16 s_log_zone_size;
> + __u16 s_pad1;
> + __u32 s_max_size;
> + __u32 s_zones;
> + __u16 s_magic;
> + __u16 s_pad2;
> + __u16 s_blocksize;
> + __u8 s_disk_version;
> +};
I am wondering, doesn't minix filesystems have on-disk byteorder
defined? That is, would __le32 or __be32 be better here?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
