On Fri 22-05-15 15:59:19, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On May 22, 2015, at 5:28 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/ext2_fs.h b/lib/ext2fs/ext2_fs.h > > index a755cfac8eae..a77c8fa09938 100644 > > --- a/lib/ext2fs/ext2_fs.h > > +++ b/lib/ext2fs/ext2_fs.h > > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ > > #define EXT2_JOURNAL_INO 8 /* Journal inode */ > > #define EXT2_EXCLUDE_INO 9 /* The "exclude" inode, for snapshots */ > > #define EXT4_REPLICA_INO 10 /* Used by non-upstream feature */ > > +#define EXT4_ORPHAN_INO 9 /* Inode with orphan entries */ > > This still has a problem here, and can't be safely landed until it is > resolved. At a minimum, it shouldn't be possible to create a filesystem > with COMPAT_ORPHAN_FILE at the same time as COMPAT_EXCLUDE_BITMAP. Since > EXCLUDE_BITMAP never made it upstream, that might be a reasonable > compromise for now. Yeah, for now I've chosen inode number 9 as for testing it's good enough. We can make this feature incompatible with COMPAT_EXCLUDE_BITMAP as you suggest or we can use some higher inode number and require increased number of reserved inodes. I don't mind either too much. > That said, we still need to do something about the lack of reserved inodes. Agreed. I've tried to get some decision from Ted regarding this a few times but failed. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
