From: Valerie Aurora Henson Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 14/17] super->s_*_blocks_count -> ext2fs_*_blocks_count() Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:25:31 -0500 Message-ID: <20081114032531.GI20637@shell> References: <1226461390-5502-7-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-8-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-9-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-10-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-11-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-12-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-13-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-14-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1226461390-5502-15-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <20081113202441.GY16005@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger , Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:60581 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751143AbYKNDZd (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:25:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081113202441.GY16005@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:24:41PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Since it isn't yet common to be able to test > 32-bit blocks > these bugs may go unnoticed for some time. It would be nice to be able > to test 64-bit support easily with e2fsprogs. Maybe truncate file > to > 16TB in size (abort if underlying filesystem isn't able to do this), > use "lazy_bg" or equivalent to avoid writing many GB of data into the > sparse file, then run e2fsck on it after putting some files at the end. > This could probably be done by the "script" support in "make check". Unfortunately, ext4 doesn't support a file this big so you'd have to deliberately put your e2fsprogs tree on XFS or something like that for this automatic check to actually help - not a terribly common situation for an e2fsprogs developer. (I'm doing all my testing on sparse files on XFS, which definitely chafes - nothing wrong with XFS, just kind of annoying that I can't self-host e2fsprogs development.) Hummm... Would it work to use LVM to glue together two loopback devices backed by files that sum to just over 16TB? -VAL