From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: flashing large eMMC partitions with ext4 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:57:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20110802165757.GD2967@thunk.org> References: <20110802160715.3069.qmail@web4212.mail.ogk.yahoo.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Goldstein Amir , Andreas Dilger , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Round Robinjp Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:34717 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754557Ab1HBQ6F (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:58:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110802160715.3069.qmail@web4212.mail.ogk.yahoo.co.jp> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:07:08AM +0900, Round Robinjp wrote: > So that means I have thrown away some important part of > the filesystem when I did truncate -s 1G, isn't it? > Will things go wrong if I flash this 1G image to my eMMC > partition (without using Yongqiang's new 64bit resize patches)? > I need to understand whether Yongqiang's patch is absolutely > necessary for this purpose or just a good thing to have. This is one of the reasons why I originally suggested using zero_free and make_sparse to write the file system image. It's a much, much, MUCH simpler way of handling things, and it doesn't require resizing the file system image, using truncate (and making sure you truncate to the right size, etc.). With the method Amir talked about, it matters whether or not the file system is mounted when you use resize2fs, whether you have the latest resize patches, etc., etc. - Ted