From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 3 21:14:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6534B16A41F for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:14:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.115]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D014243D48 for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:14:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j83LE06v030275; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:14:00 +1000 Received: from epsplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j83LDwuB019937; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:14:00 +1000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:13:58 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@epsplex.bde.org To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov In-Reply-To: <20050903194401.E1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> Message-ID: <20050904065305.T2366@epsplex.bde.org> References: <20050901183311.D62325@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20050902205456.S2885@delplex.bde.org> <20050903190632.S1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20050903194401.E1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/85503: panic: wrong dirclust using msdosfs in RELENG_6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:14:15 -0000 On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: >>> I think I said that the inode number in msdosfs should be the cluster >>> number of the first cluster in the file. This would be broken by >>> variable-sized clusters (unlikely, and even less useful) or new file >>> types like symlinks (useful and not so unlikely -- FreeBSD could add >>> them as an extension). >> >> Yes, I agree with this. While this fs has being called FAT32, >> it's cluster number will fit in 32-bit word. > > Ups, how about empty files? They haven't any allocated clusters, have > they? So, alas, we can't go this route. Urk. It also doesn't work for cd9660. So the block number can be used at most as a hint getting a unique fake inode number, and in msdosfs file systems don't have to be much larger than 128GB to have >= 4G files -- a 128+GB file system can consist of 128GB of directories all containing empty files :-). Bruce