Re: Testing ext4 persistent preallocation patches for 64 bit features

2007-02-07 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Feb 07, 2007 16:06 +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > > - disable preallocation if the filesystem free blocks is under some low > > watermarks, to save space for near future real block allocation? > > A policy decision like this

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] Nanosecond timestamps

2007-02-07 Thread Dave Kleikamp
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:39 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Feb 06, 2007 16:12 +0100, Johann Lombardi wrote: > > > + if (EXT3_SB(sb)->s_want_extra_isize < > > > + le32_to_cpu(es->s_min_extra_isize)) > > ^^ > > > +

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Move the file data to the new blocks

2007-02-07 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:46:57 -0700 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 06, 2007 17:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:12:04 +0100 > > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Move the blocks on the temporary inode to the original inode > > > > by a page. > >

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] Nanosecond timestamps

2007-02-07 Thread Johann Lombardi
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:19:50PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > +#define EXT3_INODE_SET_XTIME(xtime, extra_xtime, inode, raw_inode) \ > +do { \ > + (raw_inode)->xtime = cpu_to_le32((inode)->xtime.tv_sec); \ > + \ > + if (offsetof(typeof(*raw_inode), extra_xtime) - \ > + offseto

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Move the file data to the new blocks

2007-02-07 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Feb 06, 2007 17:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:12:04 +0100 > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Move the blocks on the temporary inode to the original inode > > > by a page. > > > 1. Read the file data from the old blocks to the page > > > 2. Move the block on the

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] Nanosecond timestamps

2007-02-07 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Feb 06, 2007 16:12 +0100, Johann Lombardi wrote: > > + if (sbi->s_inode_size > EXT3_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE) { > > + EXT3_SB(sb)->s_want_extra_isize = sizeof(struct ext3_inode) - > > EXT3_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE; > > Maybe EXT3_SB(sb)-> could be replaced by sbi-> here and in the lines

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] nanosecond timestamps

2007-02-07 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Feb 05, 2007 23:09 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:09:40PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches. It includes some > > cleanups and addition of a creation timestamp. The > > EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE flag has also be

Re: Testing ext4 persistent preallocation patches for 64 bit features

2007-02-07 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:18 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > > I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse > > device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as > > expected. > Thanks! > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Move the file data to the new blocks

2007-02-07 Thread Takashi Sato
Hi, +ext4_ext_replace_branches(struct inode *org_inode, struct inode *dest_inode, + pgoff_t from_page, pgoff_t dest_from_page, + pgoff_t count_page, unsigned long *delete_start) +{ + struct ext4_ext_path *org_path = NULL; + struct ext4_ext_path *dest_path = NULL; + struct ext4_extent *oext, *

Re: Testing ext4 persistent preallocation patches for 64 bit features

2007-02-07 Thread Mingming Cao
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:18 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse > device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as > expected. Thanks! > I have following questions for this and will appreciate > suggestions he