From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: ext4_inode difference between e2fsprogs and ext4 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:19:48 -0600 Message-ID: <20071011091948.GQ8122@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <470DE640.3040101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , linux-ext4 , Mingming Cao To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([74.0.229.162]:45269 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756259AbXJKJTu (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:19:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470DE640.3040101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Oct 11, 2007 14:30 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > In ext4 we have > > union { > struct { > __le16 l_i_reserved1; /* Obsoleted fragment > number/size which are removed in ext4 */ > __le16 l_i_file_acl_high; > __le16 l_i_uid_high; /* these 2 fields */ > __le16 l_i_gid_high; /* were reserved2[0] */ > __u32 l_i_reserved2; > } linux2; > > > Last week we were discussing about taking that l_i_reserved1 and using that > for making file_acl 64 bit and using the lower l_i_reserved2 for 64 bit dir_acl. We have l_i_file_acl_high already to give us 48-bit i_file_acl, which is sufficient, IMHO. There is no need to have a larger i_dir_acl since this field is only really used for i_size_high and should be renamed as such instead of just being a macro. > Now where will i put l_i_blocks_hi ? Just where it is now - in l_i_reserved1... Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.