From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: ext4-patch-queue rebased to 2.6.22 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:26:45 -0600 Message-ID: <20070710202645.GC6417@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <20070710145422.GA1636@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070710170939.GA6417@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070710175558.GA15345@amitarora.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Amit K. Arora" Return-path: Received: from 74-0-229-162.T1.lbdsl.net ([74.0.229.162]:52021 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763277AbXGJU0s (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:26:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070710175558.GA15345@amitarora.in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Jul 10, 2007 23:25 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:09:39AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > It might even make sense to change the other #define to be called > > EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN so people have to think about this when using the #define. > > Done. Changes are in ext4 patch queue. > Can you please have a quick look and see if this is what you preferred ? Yes, it looks good, though I wonder if it also makes sense to change the ext4_ext_*_uninitialized() code to use EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN instead of 0x8000, since that makes it a bit clearer that the two are related. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.