[Marcin Slusarz - Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:56:10PM +0200]
| 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
|
Ugh! You're right, thanks ;) Jan, drop them, sorry
- Cyrill -
--
