Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/11][take 2] 48-bit extents in e2fsprogs
From: Andreas Dilger <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-21 21:17:35
On Jun 21, 2007 17:31 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
+#define EXT4_EE_START(s, e) \ + ((e)->ee_start + \ + (((s)->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT) && \ + (EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(s) > ((unsigned) 1 << 31)) ? \ + (__u64)(e)->ee_start_hi << 32 : 0))
Isn't the INCOMPAT_64BIT check already part of EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT()? It should be impossible to have the "> (1 << 31)" check be true for a non-64-bit filesystem in that case. Also, why check for > (1 << 31) instead of >= (1 << 32)?
+#define EXT4_EE_START_SET(s,e,blk) \
+ do { \
+ (e)->ee_start = (blk); \
+ if ((s)->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT \
+ && EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(s) > ((unsigned) 1 << 31)) \
+ (e)->ee_start_hi = (__u64)(blk) >> 32; \Here you should always set ee_start_hi = 0, so there is no need for a conditional here. It is only needed for the read because initial versions of the extents code didn't clear ee_start_hi, so it deserves making a comment to that effect above EXT4_EE_START() and EXT4_EI_LEAF(). One day we may want to remove that hack and assume *_hi == 0 for all filesystems.
+#define EXT4_EI_LEAF_SET(s,e,blk) \
+ do { \
+ (ix)->ei_leaf = (blk); \
+ if ((s)->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT \
+ && EXT2_BLOCKS_COUNT(s) > ((unsigned) 1 << 31)) \
+ (ix)->ei_leaf_hi = (__u64)(blk) >> 32; \
+ } while(0)Same as above.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1604,6 +1604,10 @@ static int e2fsck_ext_block_verify(struc e2fsck_t ctx = p->ctx; struct problem_context *pctx = p->pctx; int i, problem = 0; + int flag_64bit; + + flag_64bit = p->ctx->fs->super->s_feature_incompat & + EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT;
Presumably we have verified INCOMPAT_64BIT is set for filesystems with more than 2^32 blocks in the superblock and the device size? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.