Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:23:39 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [Ext2-devel] ext2 inode size (on-disk) |
| |
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 tytso@valinux.com wrote:
> This was a project that was never completed. I thought at one point > of allowing the inode size to be not a power of 2, but if you do that, > you really want to avoid letting an inode cross a block boundary --- > for reliability and performance reasons if nothing else.
Agreed.
> In the long run, it probably makes sense to adjust the algorithms to > allow for non-power-of-two inode sizes, but require an incompatible > filesystem feature flag (so that older kernels and filesystem > utilities won't choke when mounting filesystems with non-standard > sized inodes.
I don't think that it's needed - old kernels (up to -CURRENT ;-) will simply refuse to mount if ->s_inode_size != 128. Old utilites may be trickier, though...
I'm somewhat concerned about the following: last block of inode table fragment may have less inodes than the rest. Reason: number of inodes per group should be a multiple of 8 and with inodes bigger than 128 bytes it may give such effect. Comments?
I would really, really like to end up with accurate description of inode table layout somewhere in Documentation/filesystems. Heck, I volunteer to write it down and submit into the tree ;-) Al
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |