[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1176134307.12630.3.camel@colyT43.site>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:58:27 +0800
From: coly <colyli@...il.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: confused on different inode size
Theodore:
Thanks for your explaining. I ignored this detail before, it is more
clear to me now.
Best regards.
Coly
在 2007-04-09一的 11:26 -0400,Theodore Tso写道:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:33:13AM +0800, coly wrote:
> > Theodore:
> >
> > Thanks for your replying.
> >
> > Can I understand this way:
> > * Though sizeof(struct ext4_inode) is 152, the real inode size on disk
> > still depends on mount options.
>
> Not mount options, but how the filesystem is formatted. So substitute
> "mount" with "mke2fs", and that would be correct.
>
> > * If use old inode size, the on disk inode will be 128 bytes.
> > * If use new inode size(e.g. extent option in mount), the on disk inode
> > will be 256, or more bytes.
>
> s/mount/mke2fs/
>
> And the on-disk inode size is 256, 512, or some greater power of two,
> up to the filesystem blocksize.
>
> > * If on disk inode size is 128 bytes, only first 128 bytes of struct
> > ext4_inode take effects.
>
> Well, there's no space to store the fields beyond the first 128, so
> any features that require the extra inode fields can't be used.
>
> - Ted
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists