[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395336632.2770.13.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:30:32 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: tytso@....edu, 738758@...s.debian.org
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"1o5g4r8o@...il.com" <1o5g4r8o@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#738758: [PATCH] ext4: kill i_version support for
Hurd-castrated file systems
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 10:44 -0400, tytso@....edu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:10:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:27:57PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Probably worthwhile to make those !EXT4_OS_HURD checks likely()?
>
> Yes, and I was planning on optimizing the checks a bit more, but it
> makes sense to do that in a separate patch, since this is not the only
> place where we are making EXT4_OS_HURD checks.
>
> >
> > Does it make sense to support the format at all given that it's unlikely
> > to get any testing?
>
> There are some crazy people still trying to make the Hurd a viable
> file system. There's even a Debian port for it. :-) The problem is
> that some of the folks who are still trying to make the Hurd real want
> to use ext2 as an interchange format between Linux and Hurd, and
> presumably that's how they ran across this particular bug.
[...]
That, plus we turned on CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 for Debian kernel
packages starting with Linux 3.11.
It looks like ext2 and ext3 would always initialise i_version to 1 in
memory; does it matter that you're changing that to 0 for Hurd
filesystems?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists