On Sep 08, 2006 18:13 +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> there are 2 more patches:
>
> * ext4_remove_relative_block_numbers:
>
> use 48bit absolute block numbers instead of mixed relative/absolute block
> numbers. This is simpler and seems to fix issues with large file systems.
>
> * ext4
Index: linux-2.6.18-rc6/fs/ext4/balloc.c
===
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6.orig/fs/ext4/balloc.c 2006-09-08 18:29:57.0
+0200
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6/fs/ext4/balloc.c 2006-09-08 18:30:17.0 +0200
@@ -66,10 +66,12 @@ struct ex
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:08AM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just give you all an update about the latest ext4 patches before I leave
> for vacation: The latest ext4 patches (clone ext4 + 48bit ext4) is
> against 2.6.18-rc6, as usual, could be found at:
>
> http://ext2.sourceforge.n
Index: linux-2.6.18-rc6/include/linux/ext4_fs.h
===
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6.orig/include/linux/ext4_fs.h 2006-09-08
14:37:44.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6/include/linux/ext4_fs.h2006-09-08 14:38:02.0
+0200
@@ -1
Hi Mingming,
I found a trivial bug in Mingming's ext4 patch titled
"ext4-extents-48bit.patch".
There happens a type conflicting:
+int ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, ext4_fsblk_t
iblock,
You should fix extern declaration for ext4_ext_get_blocks.
Cheers, sho
-
To un
Hello,
Just give you all an update about the latest ext4 patches before I leave
for vacation: The latest ext4 patches (clone ext4 + 48bit ext4) is
against 2.6.18-rc6, as usual, could be found at:
http://ext2.sourceforge.net/ext4/patches/latest/
Haven't done series testing yet, but fsx test runs
