Mark Fasheh wrote: >> @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ static int ocfs2_initialize_super(struct super_block >> *sb, >> >> osb->slot_num = OCFS2_INVALID_SLOT; >> >> + osb->s_xattr_inline_size = OCFS2_MIN_XATTR_INLINE_SIZE; > > Why not use the value of i_xattr_inline_size off the super-block inode to > tell the module how large xattrs should be? That way we could allow users to > change it in the future.
I change it in the fifth patch. - osb->s_xattr_inline_size = OCFS2_MIN_XATTR_INLINE_SIZE; + osb->s_xattr_inline_size = le16_to_cpu( + di->id2.i_super.s_xattr_inline_size); This is easy to test patches at the very beginning, since the fifth patch need new mkfs.ocfs2 support. > By the way, regarding sizes. I just realized that the sizes chosen for > xattrs need to be aligned to 16 byte boundaries (sizeof(struct > ocfs2_extent_rec)) so we don't waste space in the extent list above them. > > Does that make sense to you? I think we're safe - you chose the value of > OCFS2_MIN_XATTR_INLINE_SIZE well. A comment above it noting this might be > nice though > so that we don't make a mistake in the future. yes, I knew it. At first I reserve space for xattr just reduce l_count. I will add comment for this later. Best regards, tiger _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
