From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: add minimal resize size option Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:21:20 -0600 Message-ID: <477D43C0.5030607@redhat.com> References: <20080102201659.GI31745@dhcp243-37.rdu.redhat.com> <20080103172101.GE30771@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Josef Bacik , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34374 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbYACUVm (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:21:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080103172101.GE30771@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:16:59PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Hello, >> >> People wishing to make live usb disks and such are looking for a way >> to get the minimum resize size for an ext fs in blocks so that they >> can just resize their image to that size and do with it what they >> will. This patch adds that functionality, just pass -m option and >> it calculates the minimum number of blocks the fs can be resized to. > > Three comments. Instead of using a new option, why not simply let > resize2fs check to see if the optional parameter is something like > "min" or "0"? How about spitting out minimum size message whenever a too-small size is specified; 0 would then of course always take no action, but simply print the minimum. For a size that's actually specified, but too small, it'd still be useful I think, to say "XXXXX blocks is too small, minimum size is YYYYY" ? 0 could be special-cased to not print the "0 blocks is too small" part (or whatever...) -Eric