Re: [PATCH RESEND] Handle i_size > s_maxbytes correctly

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Mark Fasheh
Date: Friday, January 25, 2008 - 4:39 pm

This reply comes a bit late, sorry about that.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:13:06PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

Yeah, as you noted, there's problems with that approach. The first is that
we don't control when a 32 bit node mounts the file system. Communicating it
over the network wouldn't help because information communicated over the
network is transient and will be lost when all nodes unmount, whereas
maximun i_size for a volume is the type of thing which needs to be
permanent. Putting a "max i_size" field in the superblock is one way to
ensure that we never get into this situation but that would leave existing
file systems without a fix.



If we had a way to disable access to an inodes data, Ocfs2 could mark the
inode when it takes a cluster lock and discovers that i_size grew past what
the local node can handle.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
Principal Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@oracle.com
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH RESEND] Handle i_size > s_maxbytes correctly, Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Jan 23, 12:13 pm)
Re: [PATCH RESEND] Handle i_size > s_maxbytes correctly, Mark Fasheh, (Fri Jan 25, 4:39 pm)