Re: [PATCH] Breaking ext2 file size limit of 2TB

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

On Fri, 2004-06-25 18:34:06 +0530, Goldwyn Rodrigues <goldwyn_r@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <1088168646.d642871cgoldwyn_r@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
> 
> I have made a patch to enable file creation greater than 2TB. I
> tested it using sparse files and it works good.

Generally, a good idea, but...

> Advantages: 
> 1. Patch is compatible with the existing filesystem and does not
> need re-formatting of the device.

You're using a reserved field; how do you mean "compatible" in this
situation? Think of a filesystem with real files > 2TB. How will an
unpatched ext3fs driver handle those files? You'll only see the <2TB
content, right?

May an unpatched version under any circumstances clear the high-order
bits of the newly introduced 64bit integer, just because it doesn't know
to preserve this reserved field's value?

> Disadvantages: 
> 
> 1. The patch uses l_i_reserved1 field to keep higher order 32-bits of
> i_blocks. This means the patch cannot be used with HURD filesystems,
> because it is occupied with a translator field.

Being unfamiliar eith ext3's internals, are there other
reserved/free-for-future-use fields that don't clash with the HURD?

Are you proposing a patch like this for ext2, too?

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature