On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 18:14 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2007 12:10 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> If ext3 can do 16T, ext2 probably should be able to as well. > >> There are still "int" block containers in the block allocation path > >> that need to be fixed up. > > > > Yeah, but who wants to do 16TB e2fsck on every boot? I think there > > needs to be some limits imposed for the sake of usability. > > I figure this is in the fine tradition of "enough rope to hang oneself" > > If you have 16T of filesystem you probably know enough to not hang > yourself this way. > > *shrug* > > It's a bug, today. They are fixed in mm tree, as part of the patches which backports ext3 block reservation code to ext2. filesystem block numbers are all ext2_fsblk_t type(i.e. unsigned long)(see ext2_new_blocks()). Maybe need a round of thorough review to see if anything left, but I think what in mm tree looks good. And those patches in mm tree also backports the ext3 best-effort allocates multiple blocks code (allocate multiple blocks within the block reservation window as much as possible), FYI. Mingming > If we need another change to limit ext2 to 500G or > something, fine by me. :) > > -Eric > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
