From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Amit K. Arora" Subject: Re: ext4-patch-queue rebased to 2.6.22 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:25:58 +0530 Message-ID: <20070710175558.GA15345@amitarora.in.ibm.com> References: <20070710145422.GA1636@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070710170939.GA6417@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:45328 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758105AbXGJRzw (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:52 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6AGq4r7032693 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:52:04 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l6AHtlnT407342 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:47 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6AHtkC1008520 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070710170939.GA6417@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:09:39AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jul 10, 2007 20:24 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:37:56PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > So we're just waiting for Amit to make the minor on-disk format change > > > Andreas suggested before we push to Linus. > > > > 2. Added a new patch ext4-fallocate-8-new-ondisk-format and updated > > the series file. This patch, as suggested by Andreas, will allow > > an initialized extent to be of max 2^15 length. Main purpose of this > > change is to have a better extent-to-group alignment. > > For uninitialized extents the max length remains same - i.e. 2^15 - 1. > > One tiny change I'd ask for in this patch (it isn't critical to get in > before the upstream submission as it is only code style) is instead of > using (EXT_MAX_LEN - 1) for uninitialized extents, instead use a separate > #define EXT_UNINIT_MAX_LEN (EXT_MAX_LEN - 1) and use that in the code. > While a minor change, this localizes the knowledge of the maximum length > of uninitialized extents into just one place - right after the maximum > length of initialized extents. > > It might even make sense to change the other #define to be called > EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN so people have to think about this when using the #define. Done. Changes are in ext4 patch queue. Can you please have a quick look and see if this is what you preferred ? -- Regards, Amit Arora