On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:35:40PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't _think_ that there is a requirement for a multiple-of-8 inodes
> per group. OK, looking into mke2fs (actually lib/ext2fs/initialize.c)
> it _does_ show that it needs to be a multiple of 8, but I'm not sure
> exactly what th
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> I'm somewhat concerned about the following: last block of inode table
> fragment may have less inodes than the rest. Reason: number of inodes
> per group should be a multiple of 8 and with inodes bigger than 128
> bytes it may gi
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:29:52PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In the long run, it probably makes sense to adjust the algorithms to
> > allow for non-power-of-two inode sizes,
>
> If you don't mind, does that imply packing inodes across block
> boundaries?
No, it mea
Al writes:
> I don't think that it's needed - old kernels (up to -CURRENT ;-) will
> simply refuse to mount if ->s_inode_size != 128. Old utilites may be
> trickier, though...
Probably would need an incompat flag for changing the inode size anyways,
so old utilities wouldn't set that anyways.
>
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This was a project that was never completed. I thought at one point
> of allowing the inode size to be not a power of 2, but if you do that,
> you really want to avoid letting an inode cross a block boundary ---
> for reliability and performance r
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Strange, I run "mke2fs -I 192 /dev/hdc2" and do not have a segfault or any
> problems with e2fsck or debugfs on the resulting filesystem. I'm running
> 1.20-WIP, but I don't think anything was changed in this area for some time.
May depend on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the long run, it probably makes sense to adjust the algorithms to
> allow for non-power-of-two inode sizes,
If you don't mind, does that imply packing inodes across block
boundaries?
Regards,
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "The universe is like a safe to wh
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:55:20AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Erm... Folks, can ->s_inode_size be not a power of 2? Both
> libext2fs and kernel break in that case.
This was a project that was never completed. I thought at one point
of allowing the inode size to be not a power of 2, bu
Al writes:
> > I had always assumed that it would be a power-of-two size, but since it
> > is an undocumented option to mke2fs, I suppose it was never really
> > intended to be used. It appears, however, that the mke2fs code
> > doesn't do ANY checking on the parameter, so you could concievably m
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Al, you write:
> > Erm... Folks, can ->s_inode_size be not a power of 2? Both
> > libext2fs and kernel break in that case. Example:
> >
> > dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024 count=20480
> > mkfs -I 192 foo
>
> I had always assumed that it would be
Al, you write:
> Erm... Folks, can ->s_inode_size be not a power of 2? Both
> libext2fs and kernel break in that case. Example:
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024 count=20480
> mkfs -I 192 foo
I had always assumed that it would be a power-of-two size, but since it
is an undocumented option
Erm... Folks, can ->s_inode_size be not a power of 2? Both
libext2fs and kernel break in that case. Example:
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024 count=20480
mkfs -I 192 foo
corrupts memory and segfaults. Reason: ext2_read_inode() (same problem
is present in the kernel version of said beast) f
12 matches
Mail list logo
