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 <[email protected]>
---
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 [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]
