On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 08:08:19PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, I don't get your point. Do you want to create a new e_name_index?
Any reason lets you want to do this?
- Zheng
>
> --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
--
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
