linux-ext4 - Re: Updated ext4 patches for 2.6.18-rc6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060908180931.GK6441@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:32 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Alexandre Ratchov <alexandre.ratchov@...l.net>
Cc:	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, akpm@...l.org, shaggy@...ibm.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Updated ext4 patches for 2.6.18-rc6

On Sep 08, 2006  18:13 +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> there are 2 more patches:
> 
> * ext4_remove_relative_block_numbers:
> 
>   use 48bit absolute block numbers instead of mixed relative/absolute block
>   numbers. This is simpler and seems to fix issues with large file systems.
>    
> * ext4_allow_larger_descriptor_size:
> 
>   allow larger block group descriptors: this patch will allow to add new
>   features that need more space in the block descriptor.

Hmm, I'm a bit confused.  If we are adding larger block group descriptors,
why wouldn't we put 32-bit "high" block numbers into the larger descriptor
space?  That could be part of the INCOMPAT_64BIT support.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html