On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Andreas Dilger <adil...@dilger.ca> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-11, at 11:04, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>>>
>>> + /* Absolute addressability check (borrowed from ext4/super.c) */
>>> + if ((max_block >
>>> + (sector_t)(~0LL) >> (osb->sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9)) ||
>>> + (max_block > (pgoff_t)(~0LL) >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT -
>>> + osb->sb->s_blocksize_bits))) {
>>> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "Volume too large "
>>> + "to mount safely on this system");
>>> + status = -EFBIG;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>
>> This hunk of code is actually in several filesystems. It wouldn't be a bad
>> idea to make it a library function that can be called by the filesystem to
>> check the kernel page cache and block layer can handle these large
>> filesystems.
>
> True, but some of them do it differently (e.g. see the #if switch in
> xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count). Tracking down all variants and changing
> them is a much larger task than my simple patch.
>
> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at
> all? Or is this a refactoring that can happen later?
I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point. I thought it would be
better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of this code. That
said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (and I have no control
over OCFS2 anyway :-). However, I've found that once the fix is in people
usually forget (or become too busy) to do the cleanup and it just lingers on
unseen.
Cheers, Andreas
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
