From: Greg Freemyer Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4_bmap() may return blocks outside filesystem Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:01 -0500 Message-ID: <87f94c370902051401s6d73d810s720f187c134f0b1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <498AD58B.5000805@ph.tum.de> <20090205134905.GL8945@mit.edu> <87f94c370902050722wf2099c9i2d815737e85209f3@mail.gmail.com> <498B084F.2060608@redhat.com> <20090205164803.GM8945@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ric Wheeler , Thiemo Nagel , Ext4 Developers List To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:31473 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750707AbZBEWBD (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:03 -0500 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so263302qwe.37 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:01:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090205164803.GM8945@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:39:59AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> Greg Freemyer wrote: >>> This is just a rant, and I doubt anyone can do anything about it, but >>> it is still worth reading imho. > > It also has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread, which > was block numbers which are far outside the range of valid block > numbers given the size of the block device. :-) > The subject was "return blocks outside filesystem". In a thin-provisioning environment I'd argue that unmapped sectors are "outside the filesystem". :) Unfortunately, I can't get anyone else to see the world from my apparently unique perspective. :(