At 05:17 PM 6/20/2002 -0700, Konrad Schroder wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Trevin Beattie wrote:
>
>> Okay, if fi_blocks have no units, then shouldn't the description read
>> "array of numbers"?
>>
>> And in that case, there wouldn't be any problem if I just scaled all
>> assignments to fi_blocks by some arbitrary number, would there?
>
>Um, no, because the second block is not the sixteenth block.
>
>Thinking about this for more than 1 second, I realize that probably the
>correct thing to say is "LBNs are in units of the filesystem block size
>(lfs_bsize, for LFS)"; but keep in mind that they are not disk addresses.

Okay; that explains the expression "(lbn << fs->lfs_bshift)" in update_meta().

Was I correct in thinking that b_lblkno is the same as b_blkno?  In
lfs_newclusterbuf() they are both set to the addr parameter, but I found a
line in lfs_updatemeta() that appears to print a warning if they are both
the same.

-----------------------
Trevin Beattie          "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
trevin@xmission.com     for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
      {:->                                     --unknown