On 10/27/2011 03:10 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:32:24 +0800, Tao Ma said: > >> Currently I use all the space between i_extra_isize and inode_size if >> inode_size = 256. For inode_size > 256, half of that space is used so as >> to leave some space for other xattrs. > > I didn't check the code too closely - does this code DTRT if the user tries to > then attach a moby-sized xattr (or set of xattrs - if it's got a security.selinux > tag on it, and a security.capabilities xattr, and a user xattr or two, things are > going to be getting full). sure, it will work and all these stuff will be inserted to the external xattr block since the in-inode space is full. > >> This is only a V1 and there are still something to do(e.g. I am thinking >> of using unused extent space), but I'd like to send it out earlier so >> that it can be reviewed ASAP. > > If this works out, would it make sense to investigate doing this for all > tails in a V2? So if your file was 4099 bytes long, you could save allocating > a second block. Assuming random distribution of tail sizes, this wil save > an average of (space avail for tail)/(blocksize) per file. uh, it seems like a good suggestion, but it will make the code a little bit complicated(at least compared to the current version) and I am not sure whether the maintainer like it or not ;) . So Ted and Andreas, What do you think of this? Thanks Tao -- 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
