From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754395Ab1J0HKb (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:10:31 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:43210 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751368Ab1J0HKa (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:10:30 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3-dev To: Tao Ma Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , ext4 development , LKML , Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 00/17] ext4: Add inline data support. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:32:24 +0800." <4EA7B788.3040503@tao.ma> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <4EA7B788.3040503@tao.ma> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1319699422_3371P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: <7941.1319699422@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 198.82.161.152 auth3.smtp.vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=dagger.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020201.4EA903E2.0037,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1319699422_3371P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:32:24 +0800, Tao Ma said: > Currently I use all the space between i_extra_isize and inode_size if > inode_size = 256. For inode_size > 256, half of that space is used so as > to leave some space for other xattrs. I didn't check the code too closely - does this code DTRT if the user tries to then attach a moby-sized xattr (or set of xattrs - if it's got a security.selinux tag on it, and a security.capabilities xattr, and a user xattr or two, things are going to be getting full). > This is only a V1 and there are still something to do(e.g. I am thinking > of using unused extent space), but I'd like to send it out earlier so > that it can be reviewed ASAP. If this works out, would it make sense to investigate doing this for all tails in a V2? So if your file was 4099 bytes long, you could save allocating a second block. Assuming random distribution of tail sizes, this wil save an average of (space avail for tail)/(blocksize) per file. --==_Exmh_1319699422_3371P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFOqQPecC3lWbTT17ARAuHkAKCj3CNruCkDhLu8No83GgQQwl4iogCgghAR DGtFIx2AfT8RBBJ3T+agO7A= =DGK7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1319699422_3371P--