On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:27:57AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:30:26PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> [...]
> > > + * notify users that inline data will never be useful.
> > > + */
> > > + if ((fs_param.s_feature_incompat &
> > > + EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_INLINE_DATA) &&
> > > + inode_size == EXT2_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE) {
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it impossible to use i_blocks
> > for inline data even if there's no space for EAs?
>
> If I understand correctly, on kernel side, we determine an inode has
> inline data according to whether we have 'system.data' xattr entry on
> inode extended attribute space. If an inode doesn't have enough space
> to store an entry with 'system.data', we just think this inode doesn't
> has inline data. So that is why I add this sanity check.
Ok. I was curious. Small inode => no inline data seems like an unfortunate
restriction to me, but oh well, it's your feature. I don't plan to go back to
128 byte inodes ever. :)
Also, we could store four more bytes if we created a new e_name_index value (5?
9?) to represent "system.data". Any thoughts about that?
--D
>
> Regards,
> - Zheng
> --
> 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
--
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
