On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:46:50 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just looking at it quickly, it seems like the right thing to do is
> split setup_lazy_bg() into two parts. The first part sets
> EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT for all block groups, and then we modify the
> block allocation functions in lib/ext2fs to clear the BLOCK_UNINIT
> flag --- and then later on, we update the bg_free_blocks_count and
> s_free_blocks_count for the lazy_bg case.
Hi Ted,
As I started looking at implementing this, I noticed that patch in pu
has some chunks that don't belong to the flex_bg patch. These are the
offending lines at the end on the commit:
+ if (!force && fs_param.s_blocks_count >= ((unsigned) 1 << 31)) {
+ com_err(program_name, 0,
+ _("Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks\n"
+ "\t (8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported."));
+ exit(1);
+ }
+
+ if ((blocksize > 4096) &&
+ (fs_param.s_feature_compat & EXT3_FEATURE_COMPAT_HAS_JOURNAL))
+ fprintf(stderr, _("\nWarning: some 2.4 kernels do not support "
+ "blocksizes greater than 4096\n\tusing ext3. "
+ "Use -b 4096 if this is an issue for you.\n\n"));
+
These line probably got damaged during one of the merges. You probably
want to fix this so that the changes are not lost when rebasing to a
newer flex_bg patch.
-JRS
--
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
