From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: resize2fs minimum size wrong Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 20:27:50 -0400 Message-ID: <55611B06.3040608@ubuntu.com> References: <5560EEB1.8070003@ubuntu.com> <20150523233603.GA3270@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.226]:20536 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092AbbEXA2D (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 May 2015 20:28:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150523233603.GA3270@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 05/23/2015 07:36 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Figuring out the minimum size in a way where we don't screw up and > pick a number too _low_ is tricky, because if resize2fs aborts in > the middle, we can end up with a corrupted file system. Why is it hard? Why isn't it simply the number of used blocks, or the highest fixed metadata block, whichever is higher? > I'm going to guess the problem has to do with the reserved space > needed so that resize works correctly, and the amount of reserved Reserved for what? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVYRsGAAoJENRVrw2cjl5R8fsIAKPy2Z0IKOpKUcQR/2dpuBp+ i1Td++sM3jPfXkshJrds8xe/B1dqxcVKTK6KOjk3YIQg7cr1XfRZW4hNZ4dU/vDi NK5UiwHMa15HkVGTcF3ic3mEXmO2x3iYpgMb/9kkVJ9/k+VAXOuku1C59BQ+TAaM bJ75j4xGatN58wMs4+RqTqDHBo/SiSCSCRvlpBmytcZIjmGguhvY9VtgbS7Wqf3l GN1IjryP5CQaxq563avoIIl93u6ej4l3gYv2cIBDeBfBUv5iXkMx5rA56Z1PRs7v WRvOA75aKS6EBq1/7PvRkyvfPOBBMUgRJOoYWziMJQKD044HKVNdy72BGjn3hbQ= =ngJP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----