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
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))
> > ^^
> > > +
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.
> >
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
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
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
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
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!
>
>
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, *
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
10 matches
Mail list logo