On 3 April 2012 02:15, Liu Bo <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/02/2012 08:17 PM, David Sterba wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:28:18PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c >>> @@ -2104,6 +2104,14 @@ int open_ctree(struct super_block *sb, >>> err = -EINVAL; >>> goto fail_alloc; >>> } >>> + if (btrfs_super_sectorsize(disk_super) > PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) { >>> + printk(KERN_ERR "BTRFS: couldn't mount because sectorsize(%d)" >>> + " was larger than PAGE_SIZE(%lu)\n", >> >> %llu >> > > err, thanks for caching it. > >>> + btrfs_super_sectorsize(disk_super), >>> + (unsigned long long)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE); >>> + err = -EINVAL; >>> + goto fail_alloc; >>> + } >>> >>> features = btrfs_super_incompat_flags(disk_super); >>> features |= BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_MIXED_BACKREF; >> >> We have the opposite check a few lines below >> >> 2257 if (sectorsize < PAGE_SIZE) { >> 2258 printk(KERN_WARNING "btrfs: Incompatible sector size " >> 2259 "found on %s\n", sb->s_id); >> 2260 goto fail_sb_buffer; >> 2261 } >> 2262 >> >> so sectorsize must be equal to PAGE_SIZE always and one check can catch >> both cases. >> > > But this check is _useless_ when we have a sectorsize which is larger than > PAGE_SIZE, > we're not ready for that, too. > > We already have one check, so I'll modify this instead. :) >
Minor observation. One is "PAGE_SIZE" and one is "PAGE_CACHE_SIZE". Might those be different? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
