[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080716101817.4d40a2f9@ichigo>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:18:17 -0500
From: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15][e2fsprogs] 64-bit mke2fs cleanup
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:54:29 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:09:31AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > No, ext2fs_get_device_size2() should return EFBIG size if the device is
> > larger than 48-bit. I need to fix that on ext2fs_get_device_size2() but
> > this check here is ok.
>
> No, please don't do that. Make it reuturn EFBIG if the device won't
> fit in a blk64_t type (i.e., larger than 64-bits). In mke2fs, there
> should be a separate check to make sure the size is no larger than
> 48-bits. Otherwise, at some future point, perhaps we might enhance
> ext4 to support full a 64-bit physical block number, and then we would
> have to make behavioural changes to ext2fs_get_device_size2() that
> would necessitate renaming the function yet again.
>
> It's really important when doing library design to think about future
> expandability.
This would not be a API or ABI change so I don't see why another
renaming function would be needed. It also doesn't change the
behavior of ext2fs_get_device_size2() since it returns EFBIG when a
device is larger than what e2fsprogs currently supports, whether that
48bit or 64bits. Putting the limit ext2fs_get_device_size2() avoid
folks from abusing something that probably isn't supported.
> - Ted
-JRS
--
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