Frank Mayhar wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:54 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: ... >> That said, we might need to have some kind of flag in the on-disk >> inode to indicate that it was preallocated beyond EOF. Otherwise, >> e2fsck will try and extend the file size to match the block count, >> which isn't correct. We could also use this flag to determine if >> truncate needs to be run on the inode even if the new size is the >> same. > > After chatting with Curt about this today, it sounds like this needs two > things. One is your flag in the on-disk inode, set in fallocate() to > indicate that it has an allocation past EOF. E2fsck would use this to > avoid "fixing" the file size to match the block count. Truncate would > use this to notice that there are blocks allocated past i_size and get > rid of them. It would be cleared by truncate or by ext4_get_blocks when > using the last block of such an allocation. > > Does this make sense? Have I missed anything? I guess I'm not totally sold on the new on-disk flag; we can work out blocks past EOF w/o needing a new flag can't we? -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
