From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch 2/3] i_version update for ext4: ext4 specific code Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:48:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20070123184814.GG5236@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <45B644C0.50503@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:54780 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933114AbXAWSsQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:48:16 -0500 To: Cordenner jean noel Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45B644C0.50503@bull.net> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Jan 23, 2007 18:24 +0100, Cordenner jean noel wrote: > @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ > #define i_size_high i_dir_acl > > #if defined(__KERNEL__) || defined(__linux__) > -#define i_reserved1 osd1.linux1.l_i_reserved1 > +#define ext4_i_version osd1.linux1.l_i_version This naming is inconsistent with other inode fields, what about i_disk_version, like i_disk_size also used in the code? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.