From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/31] e2fsck: Teach EA refcounting code to handle 48bit block addresses Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:01:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20131008160105.GH17896@thunk.org> References: <20131001012642.28415.89353.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20131001012818.28415.49000.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20131007183743.GB6860@birch.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Darrick J. Wong" Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:43697 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754430Ab3JHQBY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:01:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131007183743.GB6860@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:37:43AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I am not sure if we really need count, size and cursor to be blk_t > > let alone blk64_t. It's a bit misleading because AFAICT those > > variable does not represent block numbers at all. Maybe it should be > > changed to something less confusing, preferably matching the actual > > xattr implementation ? > > Oops, I got a little too s/blk_t/blk64_t/ happy there. Those could be __u32, I > think. Or unsigned long. __u32 should be fine, yes. Could you send me an updated patch? Thanks, - Ted