1. 25 5月, 2006 2 次提交
  2. 24 5月, 2006 3 次提交
  3. 23 5月, 2006 6 次提交
  4. 22 5月, 2006 6 次提交
  5. 21 5月, 2006 13 次提交
  6. 20 5月, 2006 3 次提交
  7. 19 5月, 2006 1 次提交
    • D
      [JFFS2] Support new device nodes · aef9ab47
      David Woodhouse 提交于
      Device node major/minor numbers are just stored in the payload of a single
      data node. Just extend that to 4 bytes and use new_encode_dev() for it.
      
      We only use the 4-byte format if we _need_ to, if !old_valid_dev(foo).
      This preserves backwards compatibility with older code as much as
      possible. If we do make devices with major or minor numbers above 255, and
      then mount the file system with the old code, it'll just read the first
      two bytes and get the numbers wrong. If it comes to garbage-collect it,
      it'll then write back those wrong numbers. But that's about the best we
      can expect.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
      aef9ab47
  8. 17 5月, 2006 1 次提交
  9. 16 5月, 2006 3 次提交
  10. 15 5月, 2006 2 次提交
    • A
      [JFFS2] Fix printk format in some error messages. · 184f5652
      Andrew Morton 提交于
      fs/jffs2/nodelist.c: In function `check_node_data':
      fs/jffs2/nodelist.c:441: warning: unsigned int format, different type arg (arg 4)
      fs/jffs2/nodelist.c:464: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 5)
      
      Modified from Andrew's original fix because while his terminal may indeed
      only have eighty columns, mine only has _TWENTYFOUR_ lines. So the
      cosmetic fluff is perfectly OK out past column 80 where it was -- the
      casual reader doesn't _care_ about anything more than the fact that it
      goes 'if (foo) JFFS2_WARNING...', and there's no point wasting a whole
      line to display the tail end of the printk which nobody actually cares
      about.
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
      184f5652
    • D
      [JFFS2] Don't pack on-medium structures, because GCC emits crappy code · 3e68fbb5
      David Woodhouse 提交于
      If we use __attribute__((packed)), GCC will _also_ assume that the
      structures aren't sensibly aligned, and it'll emit code to cope with
      that instead of straight word load/save. This can be _very_ suboptimal
      on architectures like ARM.
      
      Ideally, we want an attribute which just tells GCC not to do any
      padding, without the alignment side-effects. In the absense of that,
      we'll just drop the 'packed' attribute and hope that everything stays as
      it was (which to be fair is fairly much what we expect). And add some
      paranoia checks in the initialisation code, which should be optimised
      away completely in the normal case.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
      3e68fbb5