From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: ext4 compat flag assignments Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:04:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20061004200440.GB1656@thunk.org> References: <20060922091520.GC6335@schatzie.adilger.int> <20060928085515.GC27104@openx1.frec.bull.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:19161 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbWJDUEp (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:04:45 -0400 To: Alexandre Ratchov Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060928085515.GC27104@openx1.frec.bull.fr> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > struct ext4_super_block > { > /* at offset 0xfe */ > __le32 s_desc_size; /* Group descriptor size */ > /* at offset 0x150 */ > __le32 s_blocks_count_hi; /* Blocks count */ > __le32 s_r_blocks_count_hi; /* Reserved blocks count */ > __le32 s_free_blocks_count_hi; /* Free blocks count */ > __le32 s_jnl_blocks_hi[17]; /* Backup of the journal inode */ > }; Why do we need to have the high blocks # of the journal inode. s_jnl_blocks was just a backup of the i_blocks[] array. But if we are assuming that we will only support 64-bits using extents, we shouldn't need s_jnl_blocks_hi[]. How specifically is this array being used in the patches? - Ted