[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110802160715.3069.qmail@web4212.mail.ogk.yahoo.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:07:08 +0900 (JST)
From: Round Robinjp <roundrobinjp@...oo.co.jp>
To: Goldstein Amir <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: flashing large eMMC partitions with ext4
Amir
> > But after extending to 4G, e2fsck makes some complain.
> > I guess this is not expected behaviour, is it?
> >
>
> it is expected when you use the current resize2fs,
> which does not respect the flex_bg layout, so new group block bitmaps
> are allocated beyond the 1G border and initialized.
So that means I have thrown away some important part of
the filesystem when I did truncate -s 1G, isn't it?
Will things go wrong if I flash this 1G image to my eMMC
partition (without using Yongqiang's new 64bit resize patches)?
I need to understand whether Yongqiang's patch is absolutely
necessary for this purpose or just a good thing to have.
> if you use Yongqiang's new 64bit resize patches, the final fsck won't complain.
> unfortunately for you, those patches have not been merged to the kernel yet,
> so you will have to either build your own ext4 module or wait at least until
> kernel 3.2 is released to have it in mainline.
As said above.
> It is actually quite simple to fix the 1G image, so it will pass fsck
> after truncate -s 4G.
> All it takes it setting the BLOCK_UNINIT flag in groups 8-31
> this should be possible to do with debugfs (or write a small tool to do it).
> if I have time, it will try it myself and post the instructions.
OK, thanks in advance.
Best Regards
Round
--
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