On Oct 04, 2006 16:04 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> > struct ext4_super_block
> > {
> > /* at offset 0xfe */
> > __le32 s_desc_size; /* Group descriptor size */
> > /* at offset 0x150 */
> > __le32 s_blocks_count_hi; /* Blocks count */
> > __le32 s_r_blocks_count_hi; /* Reserved blocks count */
> > __le32 s_free_blocks_count_hi; /* Free blocks count */
> > __le32 s_jnl_blocks_hi[17]; /* Backup of the journal inode */
> > };
>
> Why do we need to have the high blocks # of the journal inode.
> s_jnl_blocks was just a backup of the i_blocks[] array. But if we are
> assuming that we will only support 64-bits using extents, we shouldn't
> need s_jnl_blocks_hi[]. How specifically is this array being used in
> the patches?
Good question, I don't know that it is. Even if the journal was extent
mapped (possible, but would need support in e2fsprogs for this) the
data would be stored in the same sized i_blocks array.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
