Re: [patch] ext2: xip check fix

[Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Am I missing something here? I wonder how s390 works without this change?
>
> --
> ext2 should not worry about checking sb->s_blocksize for XIP before the
> sb's blocksize actually gets set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
> ---
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext2/super.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext2/super.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/ext2/super.c
> @@ -844,8 +844,7 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_
>
>  	blocksize = BLOCK_SIZE << le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_log_block_size);
>
> -	if ((ext2_use_xip(sb)) && ((blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) ||
> -				  (sb->s_blocksize != blocksize))) {
> +	if (ext2_use_xip(sb) && blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) {
>  		if (!silent)
>  			printk("XIP: Unsupported blocksize\n");
>  		goto failed_mount;
"blocksize" contains the blocksize of the device here, and 
sb->s_blocksize does contain the filesystem block size as saved in the 
super block. Xip does only work, if both do match PAGE_SIZE because it 
does'nt support multiple calls to direct_access in the get_xip_page 
address space operation. Thus we check both here, actually this was 
changed from how it looks after your patch as a bugfix where our 
tester tried a 4k filesystem on a 2k blockdev.
Did I miss something?
--
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/