Hi,
+ext4_ext_replace_branches(struct inode *org_inode, struct inode *dest_inode,
+ pgoff_t from_page, pgoff_t dest_from_page,
+ pgoff_t count_page, unsigned long *delete_start) +{
+ struct ext4_ext_path *org_path = NULL;
+ struct ext4_ext_path *dest_path = NULL;
+ struct ext4_extent *oext, *dext;
+ struct ext4_extent tmp_ext;
+ int err = 0;
+ int depth;
+ unsigned long from, count, dest_off, diff, replaced_count = 0;
These should be sector_t, shouldn't they?
At some point should we start using blkcnt_t properly? (block-in[-large]-file, not
block-in[-large]-device?) I think that's what it was introduced for, although it's not
in wide use at this point.
I guess the type really isn't used anywhere else; just in the inode's i_blocks.
Hmm.
On reflection, I think we should use ext4_fsblk_t in this case, because
some ext4 codes such as ext4_ext_get_blocks() use it.
int ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
ext4_fsblk_t iblock,
So I would like to change "unsigned long" into ext4_fsblk_t in my next patch.
Cheers, Takashi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
