[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496CA89C.9090008@panasas.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:43:40 +0200
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>,
open-osd development <osd-dev@...n-osd.org>,
Avishay Traeger <avishay@...il.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [osd-dev] [PATCH 1/9] exofs: osd Swiss army knife
Alan Cox wrote:
>>> +#define EXOFS_SUPER_ID 0x10000 /* object ID for on-disk superblock */
>
> And if an OS failure breaks the super block and you have only one how do
> you recover it ?
There is nothing really in this object but the "next_id" which is recoverable
by an fsck utility (Not yet submitted) by a simple osd-list-partition
command. Same for num-of-files. All these values are just cached values,
for convenience.
>
>>> +#define EXOFS_BM_ID 0x10001 /* object ID for ID bitmap */
Not used will be dropped
>>> +#define EXOFS_ROOT_ID 0x10002 /* object ID for root directory */
OK Only one, but so is all other directories. I'll think about it.
I'll probably postpone it for together with the raid management.
>>> +#define EXOFS_TEST_ID 0x10003 /* object ID for test object */
Not used will be dropped
>
> Ditto some of the others
>
>>> + EXOFS_UINT64_MAX = (~0LL),
>>> + EXOFS_MAX_INO_ID = (sizeof(ino_t) * 8 == 64) ? EXOFS_UINT64_MAX :
>>> + (1LL << (sizeof(ino_t) * 8 - 1)),
>
> Ok so thats quite a big number
>
>>> + uint32_t s_nextid; /* Highest object ID used */
I fixed all that to be __le64, you can see that on the web here:
http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/exofs
I will submit another round ASAP. I'm currently busy with user-mode-library.
Once done I'll post the next exofs round. All these and lots of other areas where
converted to proper __leXX types. Specially the directory code had all these
missing. It was all triggered thanks to Morton who pointed me to all these ext2
bug-fixes since 2.6.10.
>
> but that is a smaller one
>
>>> + uint32_t s_numfiles; /* Number of files on fs */
>
> as is this
Yes also fixed to __le64
>
>>> + uint32_t i_atime; /* Access time */
>>> + uint32_t i_ctime; /* Creation time */
>>> + uint32_t i_mtime; /* Modification time */
>
> 2038 ? - bits are cheap
>
OK Avisi got lazy, This is a copy form ext2. I will fix that,
thanks for pointing this out. I will put __le64 for seconds
and also add __le64 for nanoseconds while at it.
Thanks Ingo for your review
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists