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.
pgpOSffhZ53Hp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
