On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:28:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Since it's possible for very large filesystems to store backup superblocks at > very large (> 2^32) block numbers, we need to be able to handle the case of a > caller directing us to read one of these high-numbered backups. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> Hmm... This is technically true, but I'm wondering how much we should care. In practice, users almost always use the first couple of backup superblocks. I could imagine a situation with a RAID array where the first disk(s) were trashed, so we needed to use a backup superblock beyond 2**32, but it's a bit unlikely. If there was some other reason why we needed to add a new ext2fs_open3 variant, it would certainly be a good thing to fix. But I'm wondering if it's worth adding a new interface just for this. Is there perhaps any other extensions to ext2fs_open() that we might want to make, either now or in the future? Regards, - Ted -- 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
