From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 25 23:14:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A0937B401; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from beastie.mckusick.com (beastie.mckusick.com [209.31.233.184]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F04143EAF; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com) Received: from beastie.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beastie.mckusick.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAQ7E059070465; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:14:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com) Message-Id: <200211260714.gAQ7E059070465@beastie.mckusick.com> To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format Cc: current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , re@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:08:30 PST." Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:14:00 -0800 From: Kirk McKusick Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Kirk McKusick cc: current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , re@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format In-Reply-To: <200211250619.gAP6J059068226@beastie.mckusick.com> X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote: > Some of these fields could usefully be made unsigned others not > (for example fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes). So just > going through and making everything unsigned is not the right > approach. I will make a pass through and consider changing some > of these fields once the tree opens back up, but not at this > point in time when we are trying to keep changes to a minimum > and do not have time for extensive testing. > > Kirk McKusick I'm not in a hurry.. It's just something that I thought should be considered..... "eventually". BTW how can fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes be -ve? In theory they should never go negative. But if an inconsistency occurs (for example a crash and remount before background fsck has run) the accounting can get out of whack and the numbers go negative. We check for this happening and take corrective action. If they were changed to unsigned, we would miss the negative transition and instead suddenly think that we had a huge amount of pending space to free. So this is an example where changing them to unsigned would break existing code. Kirk McKusick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message