From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 4 12:34:57 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 661B116A41F for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:34:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua) Received: from postman.atlantis.dp.ua (postman.atlantis.dp.ua [193.108.47.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E5043D45 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:34:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua) Received: from smtp.atlantis.dp.ua (smtp.atlantis.dp.ua [193.108.46.231]) by postman.atlantis.dp.ua (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j84CYf88056624; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:34:41 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:34:41 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <44604.1125782260@phk.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20050904152458.J53303@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <44604.1125782260@phk.freebsd.dk> 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: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:34:57 -0000 Hello! On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Uhm, did none of you guys see my email about how this must be > done correctly the say way NFS does it correctly ? Me, me! ;) I understood the right way to do it yesterday, but haven't verified it yet. Of course, I've missed vfs_hash_cmp_t *fn, void *arg arguments of vfs_hash_get(). To say more, your rev 1.88 of msdosfs_denode.c _must_ work correctly after addition of two casts to (uint64_t) in your 64-bit inode calculations! Once I get some free time, I'll check my assumption and will post an appropriate follow-up to my PR. I really want that people won't be "surprised" by 6.0-RELEASE crashing by just accessing their large FAT32 partitions. > Making the hashes be 64bit is pointless since no filesystems will > have that many inodes and it still doesn't solve the problem properly. While I agree with you about hashes, I still think that enlarging media sizes will lead to increasing number of filesystems that will support > 4 Gfiles / fs. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE