2007-06-14 15:56:11

by Kalpak Shah

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] Separated 64-bit i_version patch

64-bit-i_version.patch which only replaces the 32-bit i_version field in
the generic inode with a 64-bit i_version field.

Signed-off-by: Jean Noel Cordenner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kalpak Shah <[email protected]>
---
fs.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

P.S. The VFS-level updates of the inode version are still in the
i_version_update_vfs.patch and this patch has been moved to the bottom
of the patch series.


Attachments:
64-bit-i_version.patch (611.00 B)

2007-06-14 20:58:46

by Mingming Cao

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Separated 64-bit i_version patch

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:26 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> This patch converts the 32-bit i_version in the generic inode to a 64-
> bit
> i_version field.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Noel Cordenner <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kalpak Shah <[email protected]>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21/include/linux/fs.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21.orig/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ linux-2.6.21/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ struct inode {
> uid_t i_uid;
> gid_t i_gid;
> dev_t i_rdev;
> - unsigned long i_version;
> + uint64_t i_version;
> loff_t i_size;
> #ifdef __NEED_I_SIZE_ORDERED
> seqcount_t i_size_seqcount;
>
>


I think u64 is better here. It seems uint64_t is not defined in some
cases and rarely being used.

Mingming

2007-06-14 21:41:59

by Andreas Dilger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Separated 64-bit i_version patch

On Jun 14, 2007 13:58 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:26 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > This patch converts the 32-bit i_version in the generic inode to a 64-
> > bit i_version field.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Noel Cordenner <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Kalpak Shah <[email protected]>
> >
> > @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ struct inode {
> > uid_t i_uid;
> > gid_t i_gid;
> > dev_t i_rdev;
> > - unsigned long i_version;
> > + uint64_t i_version;
> > loff_t i_size;
> > #ifdef __NEED_I_SIZE_ORDERED
> > seqcount_t i_size_seqcount;
> >
> >
>
>
> I think u64 is better here. It seems uint64_t is not defined in some
> cases and rarely being used.

Agreed.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.