On Jul 23, 2007 18:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm, yes, there is a risk that the code was accidentally correct. Or the
> code has only ever dealt with power-of-2 inputs, in which case it happens
> to work either way.
>
> David(s) and ext4-people: could we please have a close review of these
> changes?
> > @@ -1706,8 +1704,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super
> > - sbi->s_addr_per_block_bits = log2(EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb));
> > - sbi->s_desc_per_block_bits = log2(EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb));
> > + sbi->s_addr_per_block_bits = ilog2(EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb));
> > + sbi->s_desc_per_block_bits = ilog2(EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb));
For the ext[234] code there has only ever been power-of-two values for
ADDR_PER_BLOCK() and DESC_PER_BLOCK().
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
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]
