Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:56:10 +0200 | From | Marcin Slusarz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UDF - use UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION instead of numbers |
| |
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:22PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > [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.
Yes, but these values don't correlate with UDF_MAX_WRITE_VERSION - it's simple coincidence. If you really don't like these numbers add another constant.
Marcin
| |