From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 2/2] ext4: Use -1 as the fake block number for delayed new buffer_head Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:37:34 -0500 Message-ID: <49F8743E.7090201@redhat.com> References: <1240980441-8105-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1240980441-8105-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090429153521.GC14264@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38380 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753373AbZD2Phk (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:37:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090429153521.GC14264@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:17:21AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for >> the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for >> block number '0'. So use -1 instead. > > sector_t is an unsigned type, so we probably want to use ~0 instead of > -1. I can fix this up before we apply into the patch queue. I don't think that helps. The point is to have a block number which is invalid, therefore won't get unmapped or accidentally written to ... -Eric > Are we agreed both of these should probably be pushed to Linus for > 2.6.30? > > - Ted