Re: [PATCH 9/9]ext4 super block changes for >32 bit blocks numbers

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:22:25 -0700
Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> In-kernel and on-disk super block changes to support >32 bit blocks numbers.
> 
> +static inline u32 EXT4_RELATIVE_ENCODE(ext4_fsblk_t group_base,
> +				       ext4_fsblk_t fs_block)
> +{
> +	s32 gdp_block;
> +
> +	if (fs_block < (1ULL<<32) && group_base < (1ULL<<32))
> +		return fs_block;
> +
> +	gdp_block = (fs_block - group_base);
> +	BUG_ON ((group_base + gdp_block) != fs_block);
> +
> +	return gdp_block;
> +}
> +
> +static inline ext4_fsblk_t EXT4_RELATIVE_DECODE(ext4_fsblk_t group_base,
> +						u32 gdp_block)
> +{
> +	if (group_base >= (1ULL<<32))
> +		return group_base + (s32) gdp_block;
> +
> +	if ((s32) gdp_block >= 0 && gdp_block < group_base &&
> +		  group_base + gdp_block >= (1ULL<<32))
> +		return group_base + gdp_block;
> +
> +	return gdp_block;
> +}

These seem far too large and far too commonly called to be inlined.

>  
> +
> +#define EXT4_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)	\
> +	(ext4_fsblk_t)(((__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_blocks_count_hi) << 32) |	\
> +	 	(__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_blocks_count))
> +#define EXT4_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s,v)	do {				\
> +	(s)->s_blocks_count = cpu_to_le32((v));				\
> +	(s)->s_blocks_count_hi = cpu_to_le32(((__u64)(v)) >> 32);	\
> +} while (0)
> +
> +#define EXT4_R_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)	\
> +	(ext4_fsblk_t)(((__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_r_blocks_count_hi) << 32) |	\
> +		 (__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_r_blocks_count))
> +#define EXT4_R_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s,v)	do {				\
> +	(s)->s_r_blocks_count = cpu_to_le32((v));			\
> +	(s)->s_r_blocks_count_hi = cpu_to_le32(((__u64)(v)) >> 32);	\
> +} while (0)
> +
> +#define EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_COUNT(s)					\
> +	(ext4_fsblk_t)(((__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_free_blocks_count_hi) << 32) | \
> +		 (__u64)le32_to_cpu((s)->s_free_blocks_count))
> +#define EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_COUNT_SET(s,v)	do {				\
> +	(s)->s_free_blocks_count = cpu_to_le32((v));			\
> +	(s)->s_free_blocks_count_hi = cpu_to_le32(((__u64)(v)) >> 32);	\
> +} while (0)

Can these not be implemented as C functions?

-
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/