On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:56 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > 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. For the moment I'm going to table the e2fsck change and make the flag memory-only. It'll be easy enough to change this if and when you guys come to an agreement about what is right. As for the flag itself, I'll pick a bit that doesn't conflict with anything else and leave reconciling the already-conflicting bits to you guys. -- Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx> Google, 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
