From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: add max_dir_size_kb mount option Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:10:29 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20120810215811.GA1137@thunk.org> <1344649235-9289-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20120811192648.GA9363@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ext4 Developers List To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:45596 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753114Ab2HKVKf (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:10:35 -0400 Received: by pbbrr13 with SMTP id rr13so4847671pbb.19 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:10:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120811192648.GA9363@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2012-08-11, at 1:26 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:22:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >> In our patch, it returns EFBIG, since it isn't really a case of >> being out of space for blocks or inodes. > > I agree, EFBIG seems to be a better errno. > > How did you configure the directory size limit, BTW? Did you use a > mount option, if so, what did you name it? It was configured via /sys/fs/ext4/{dev}/max_dir_size, but the units were bytes instead of kbytes. Not many sites use this value, so if it needs to be renamed .../max_dir_size_kb it wouldn't be fatal - we could modify our patch to allow both, and print a deprecation message if the old one is used. It will likely still be a few years before distros are running 3.6 (or whatever kernel this patch is included in). At least we wouldn't have to carry that patch in perpetuity. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Whamcloud, Inc. Principal Lustre Engineer http://www.whamcloud.com/