On Jul 23, 2009 11:05 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 12:00 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Sorry I skimmed to fast, skipped over the fsck part. But: > > > > # touch /mnt/test/testfile > > # /root/fallocate -n -l 16m /mnt/test/testfile > > # ls -l /mnt/test/testfile > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jul 23 12:13 /mnt/test/testfile > > # du -h /mnt/test/testfile > > 16M /mnt/test/testfile > > > > there doesn't seem to be a problem in fsck w/ block past EOF, or am I > > missing something else? > > I was taking Andreas' word for it but now that you mention it, I see the > same thing. Andreas, did you have a specific case in mind? Ted and I had discussed this in the past, maybe he fixed e2fsck to not change the file size when there are blocks allocated beyond EOF. Having a flag wouldn't be a terrible idea, IMHO, so that e2fsck can make a better decision on whether the size or the blocks count are more correct. I'm not dead set on it. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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
