linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: handle exactly-16T filesystems in resize2fs

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:15:57 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: handle exactly-16T filesystems in resize2fs

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:00:26AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> 
> which version of e2fsprogs are you referring to ? When I look at master
> branch I can see than those changes are already in there. Except the check
> if the new size is too large. Am I missing something ?

The 1.41.x series is on the "maint" branch.

The 1.42 version is on the main "master" and "next" branch, where
"next" is where I'll check in things initially, and then "master"
catches up with "next".  I took this from git, with the basic idea
being that if there are people who are testing next, and people who
are using the "master", hopefully problems get noticed and fixed
before people are using "master" grab a commit.  To be honest there
probably aren't enough people tracking next and master for this to
make a huge amount of difference, but I'm following this scheme
anyway.

					- 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