On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:06 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > Hi Ted, > > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > Hi Kalpak, > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > > It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem > > > by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open(). > > > > Your patch didn't add this logic to ext2fs_open(); it just reserved > > the space in the superblock. > > Yeah the earlier patch for just reserving the fields. > > > > > I don't mind reserving the space so we don't have to worry about > > conflicting superblock uses, but I'm still on the fence about actually > > adding this functionality (a) into e2fsprogs, and (b) into the ext4 > > kernel code. I guess it depends on how complicated/icky the > > implementation code is, I guess. > Hi Ted, So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you can share your views on them. Thanks, Kalpak. - 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
