Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:06:22 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers |
| |
[Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:29PM +0200] | On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:08PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> | > --- | > | > Jan, the patch is over current yours for_mm branch | > | > Yep, i know it exceeds 80 column *but* it looks much better | > in this way ;) | > | > Index: linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c | > =================================================================== | > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 22:53:15.000000000 +0400 | > +++ linux-2.6.git/fs/udf/inode.c 2008-04-12 23:34:28.000000000 +0400 | > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ int8_t udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode, | > } | > if (epos->bh) { | > if (!UDF_QUERY_FLAG(inode->i_sb, UDF_FLAG_STRICT) || | > - UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= 0x0201) | > + UDF_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_udfrev >= UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION) | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, loffset); | > else | > udf_update_tag(epos->bh->b_data, | I think this patch is wrong. Right now it doesn't change anything, but in future | when someone will add support for writing UDF > 2.01 (and bump UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION) | it will break for filesystems written with udfrev >= 2.01 && udfrev < UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION. | | Marcin |
well, if someone add support the writting UDF > 2.01 it will require additional switches/analisys anyway and saving these hard-coded-numbers would not help.
- Cyrill -
| |