From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Cc: "ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
<ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>,
Al Viro <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Ext2/3 32-bit stat() wrap for ~2TB files
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:50:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050211225047.GF16520@schnapps.adilger.int> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1108157964.1944.209.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1308 bytes --]
On Feb 11, 2005 21:39 +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> ...i_blocks is counted in fs blocksize units, so we're nowhere near
> overflowing that. It's only when stat() converts it to st_blocks'
> 512-byte units that we get into trouble within the kernel.
Umm, I don't think so. ext3 i_blocks is sectors and not fs blocks (one of
my pet peeves actually). In 2.4 it is as below, 2.6 has one more copy.
ext3_read_inode()
{
:
inode->i_blocks = le32_to_cpu(raw_inode->i_blocks);
cp_new_stat()
{
:
tmp.st_blocks = inode->i_blocks;
I've wondered at times whether it might make sense to store i_blocks in
fs blocksize units when we add some new feature (e.g. high bits for
i_blocks if we overflow 2^32) but I'm not sure the increased complexity
makes up for the minor increase in dynamic range.
In the end, we hit the 2^64 fs size limit before we would run out of
range for i_blocks (assuming 64 bits there) so changing it doesn't help
much. The only reason to change would be to store up to 2^48 fs blocks
(only using 16 bits in the core inode, e.g. i_frag + i_fsize) and assume
we need to use 2^16 blocksize for the largest files with extents.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://members.shaw.ca/adilger/ http://members.shaw.ca/golinux/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-11 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-11 20:52 Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-02-11 21:27 ` Andreas Dilger
2005-02-11 21:39 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-02-11 22:50 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050211225047.GF16520@schnapps.adilger.int \
--to=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alex@clusterfs.com \
--cc=ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®