From: Cordenner jean noel Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch 2/3] i_version update for ext4: ext4 specific code Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:07:52 +0100 Message-ID: <45B76838.4000903@bull.net> References: <45B644C0.50503@bull.net> <20070123184814.GG5236@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:57517 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751441AbXAXOIf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:08:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070123184814.GG5236@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Andreas Dilger a =E9crit : > 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 >=20 > This naming is inconsistent with other inode fields, what about > i_disk_version, like i_disk_size also used in the code? >=20 I agree that sounds better