From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 13:14:35 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D311065670 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:14:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DE18FC12 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:14:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 249DE5C18; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:14:42 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Kostik Belousov Message-ID: <20080909131442.GL62357@atarininja.org> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080909123746.GK39652@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: freebsd-hackers , jT Subject: Re: 256-byte inode support X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:14:35 -0000 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