From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix to read empty directory blocks correctly in 64k blocksize filesystems Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:05:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20090217000509.GI23758@mini-me.lan> References: <4990FAE4.1080009@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090210152049.GF30689@mini-me.lan> <20090211054816.GP3209@webber.adilger.int> <20090211151547.GK29220@mini-me.lan> <20090216233256.GI3199@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Wei Yongjun , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:35305 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097AbZBQP7Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:59:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090216233256.GI3199@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:32:56PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > There are probably a dozen other places in the ext* code that expect > blocksize <= 65536, so I don't think this new encoding is really helping > us at all. We are already restricted to 2^32-1 inodes due to the dirent > format and I expect we will have changed the dirent format by that time > anyways. I can only find one other place, actually, which would be the extended attribute code --- e_value_offs is a 16 bit offset (although we could steal bits form e_value block if necessary). > I'd rather keep this change as simple as possible (i.e. the original > 65535 or 0 values, preferring 65535). For 64k block sizes, I've kept this, although I preferred 0 since it's a cleaner change if we want to allow bigger blocksize alternative. I don't think 65535 is any worse than 0 in terms of detecting directory corruption. - Ted