[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6B0D8B5D-C576-4DC2-B390-9D1EB8B6A5BA@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:55:49 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Masayoshi MIZUMA <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] ext3: set i_extra_isize of 11th inode
On 2010-08-25, at 18:36, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:39:11PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>
>> The fix to e2fsck for this issue has been around for a long time,
>> AFAIK. It was only needed in the kernel while the broken mke2fs was
>> in wide use, and before a fixed e2fsck was available.
>
> The mke2fs in question was fixed in e2fsprogs 1.37, over five years
> ago. Mizuma-san, why are you using such an __ancient__ mke2fs? It
> would seem that instead of fixing the kernel, the better thing to do
> is to fix your version of e2fsprogs.
I think you are missing the point. I don't think it matters which mke2fs is in use. The problem is that ext3_iget() has a workaround for this 5-year-old mke2fs bug that is actively causing a loss of xattr data if lost+found is reallocated.
> I certainly don't see the point of fixing making any changes in ext4
> to accomodate such a change, since e2fsprogs which is that old won't
> support ext4 file system features anyway.
There is no patch to ext4, which never had the workaround (this is a clear difference between ext3_iget() and ext4_iget()). That was because we knew ext4 would not be in use on these old filesystems and there was no point to include the workaround.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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