On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> I'm somewhat concerned about the following: last block of inode table
> fragment may have less inodes than the rest. Reason: number of inodes
> per group should be a multiple of 8 and with inodes bigger than 128
> bytes it may give such effect. Comments?
Yup, that's right. That shouldn't be too bad, though, since we
already calculate things by dividing by INODES_PER_BLOCK_GROUP. So
the fact that the last block of the inode table may have some unused
space shouldn't be a problem.
> I would really, really like to end up with accurate description of
> inode table layout somewhere in Documentation/filesystems. Heck, I
> volunteer to write it down and submit into the tree ;-)
The "design and implementation of ext2" paper has a pretty good
explanation of the inode table, but of course it assumed a convenient
inode size of 128, and didn't really go into the issues of what might
happen if the inode size were larger, or not a power of two.
So yeah, getting something which explains how things work now that
things have gotten a bit more complicated would be a good thing.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:35 EST