![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: >> The below might help. > > Indeed it does (with Martin's E2FSBLK warning fix), > seems to be running well on all machines now. > > (Of course, my ext2_fsblk_t ext2_new_blocks() notion did not pan out, > for same reason as the original: that ret_block was expected signed.) Whilst I've got all the smart people looking at this ... /*max window size: 1024(direct blocks) + 3([t,d]indirect blocks) */ #define EXT2_MAX_RESERVE_BLOCKS 1027 Is that wrong? If it's meaning one triple, one double, and one single indirect block, surely it can span a boundary, so we need (potentially) two of each? M. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-14 22:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||