Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:14:42 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, jT <toyj@union.edu> Subject: Re: 256-byte inode support Message-ID: <20080909131442.GL62357@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20080909123746.GK39652@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <9f8af95f0809061626q22bc8f60i48fd95b32cef3d04@mail.gmail.com> <20080907150747.GB62357@atarininja.org> <20080909115351.GJ39652@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080909122917.GK62357@atarininja.org> <20080909123746.GK39652@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:37:47PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 08:29:17AM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:53:51PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:07:47AM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:26:27PM -0400, jT wrote: > > > > > hackers, > > > > > > > > > > since tytso had updated ext3 -- i've noticed that i can't use my > > > > > 265-byte inode ext3 drives -- is there any effort to update it? If > > > > > not -- if you know where i should attempt to start please let me know > > > > > so i can start working on support (i have a few other people i know > > > > > interested in this) -- thanks and hope everyone is well > > > > > > > > There was a PR submitted for it and eventually a patch added to the PR. > > > > I've tested the patch given in the URL at the port and it works. We > > > > will start to see more of this as the newer version becomes more common > > > > in the wild. > > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/124621 > > > > > > > > Would be nice to see this fixed in 7.1 but it may be too late for that. > > > > > > What was the reason for increasing inode size ? I think it is rather > > > pointless to increase the size without using newly added space for some > > > data. Is inode format the same for the first 128 bytes, and does data > > > at the second 128 bytes should be used to correctly interpret inode ? > > > > I honestly don't know the answer. Though I do agree that it is > > pointless to increase the size without using the new space. > > > > All I know is that I was unable to read an ext filesystem made with -I > > 256 (which is the default when using the most recent > > sysutils/e2fsprogs). > > I think it is too dangerous for the user data to commit this patch, > without investigating this first. I think that's a fair assessment to make. The patch is certainly simple enough but I'm not familiar with what it's doing to make an accurate assessment. I know it worked for the simple test case I provided in my previous message. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080909131442.GL62357>