From: Christian Kujau Subject: Re: e2fsck not fixing all corruptions on the first run? Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:59:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20080313205426.GD28728@mit.edu> <20080313214731.GE28728@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from ns2.g-housing.de ([81.169.133.75]:60109 "EHLO mail.g-house.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757233AbYCMV76 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:59:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080313214731.GE28728@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > Oh, right. Sorry, I missed that. I think I know what's going on. > The problem is we're not supporting long symlinks which are in extents > format. That's something which we changed, but we're going to change > back (since we need it to support filesystems with > 2**32 blocks). When you say "changed", you mean the on-disk format changed? If so, I could (should?) just mkfs again, since ext4 is in flux anyway and nobody said the on-disk format was frozen. IOW, I don't know if it's wise to put in quirks just because of some old test-environment. When ext4 is (offically) released, everybody will have the "right" format and e2fsck will work as expected, no? thanks, C. -- BOFH excuse #441: Hash table has woodworm