Valerie Aurora Henson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:09:05AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> FWIW, I was trying to create an ext4 file system with more than 2^32 >>> blocks to demonstrate a parted bug fix, but with the particular device >>> I was using, I couldn't even create one with 2^31-1 blocks. >>> >>> When I try to create an ext4 file system specifying both block size and >>> the number of blocks, the size of the underlying device should not matter, >>> as long as it is large enough. >> Oops, my fault. I fixed the case where the device was exactly 16TB >> (as in created via lvcreate --size 16TB, but the fix was very minimal, >> since it was just before a maintenance release. I didn't consider (or >> test) the case where the device was larger than or equal to 2*32 >> blocks (given a specified blocksize, or 4k if no blocksize was >> specified), and an explicit block size less than 2*32 was specified. >> >> I'll put it on my todo list to fix for e2fsprogs 1.41.5. > > Note that this is fixed in effect by the 64bit patches, since we use > the 64bit get device size function. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/ext2/val/e2fsprogs.git > > Branch "shared-64bit". > > -VAL That won't fix it for ext3 though will it? (not that I've looked in detail) but the issue is not whether we can properly get the device size; it's that the device size, rather than the filesystem size, is checked for overflow vs. the filesystem's limits... -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
