On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2016 21:08:25 Deepa Dinamani wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2016 23:50:01 Deepa Dinamani wrote:
/** Assign a default empty range [MAX_VFS_TIME, MIN_VFS_TIME].* This will help VFS detect filesystems that do not populate* these fields in the superblock.*/s->s_time_min = MAX_VFS_TIME;s->s_time_max = MIN_VFS_TIME; s->cleancache_poolid = CLEANCACHE_NO_POOL;I think this is still less clear than it should be, even with the comment explaining it.
As I just replied to Dave, how about initializing both to -1 instead?
This was one of my first ideas. The reason I did not choose this is because
- [-1, -1] is a valid range theoretically.
- -1 would now be treated as a value.
It is true that no filesystem is using -1 as a limit. But, I did not feel right excluding a perfectly good value. Choosing [1,1] or any other number except probably 0 would work the same way.
This is the reason that I decided an invalid range should be represented by an invalid tuple and not a single value. My premise was that a range where min_time > max_time is invalid.
Right.
My first choice here as in the first patch I shared with you privately was [1,-1]. But, the condition min_time < max_time can easily be achieved by changing just one of the values. For instance, [1, 2016]. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that the filesystem explicitly set both the values.
I see where you are coming from here, but I think we could also assume some minimum level of competence from the file system developers, so I would not have quite described it this way ;-)
Sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody. I was thinking it could avoid accidental update of only one of the bounds. The illustration I gave was meant to correlate with only setting s->s_time_max = U32_MAX (in 2106).
- Deepa