From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of resize2fs for enabling 64-bit inodes
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:25:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150420102557.GD3117@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150417185849.GD11592@birch.djwong.org>
On Fri 17-04-15 11:58:49, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've noticed that you've implemented enabling 64-bit mode of a filesystem
> > in resize2fs. That is quite logical from the implementation point of view
> > however IMHO it doesn't make too much sense from user point of view. I'd
>
> I agree it's awkward; right now there's a bandaid that tune2fs -O 64bit will
> tell you how to run resize2fs...
>
> > rather expect that functionality to be in tune2fs. So shouldn't we rather
> > abstract the code into a separate library that would be linked to both
> > resize2fs and tune2fs? Alternatively we could just make tune2fs call
> > resize2fs with appropriate options.
>
> ...but I've wondered myself why we have two utilities for transforming ext4
> filesystems. A library would probably be cleaner, but it wouldn't be too
> hard to change existing tune2fs functionality to run (instead of telling
> the user how to run) resize2fs for 64bit conversion.
Yes. The only catch is that executing resize2fs needn't always execute
the right one (e.g. in a system where you just test new version of
e2fsprogs in the source directory).
> I guess one could combine the two into a frankentool that uses argv[0] to
> figure out which half of itself to run, with the tune2fs side being able
> to call into the resize2fs side. But maybe it's time for the 'high level
> e2fs library' that Ted has been talking about for a while?
Yeah, highlevel e2fsprogs library seems as a nice idea and it would solve
the problem. It's quite some work though...
> > I'm asking because I'm now looking into implementing increasing number of
> > reserved inodes. For that we may need to move some inodes and it would be
> > natural to use code from resize2fs for that. But adding that as an option
> > to resize2fs is just unintuitive from user point of view so I'd like to
> > have some concensus on how we do this... Darrick, Ted, any opinion?
>
> What do you think of the thread "e2fsprogs: reserve more special inodes" from a
> month or so ago?
Ah, I've missed that one. From a first look it looks OK. It seems
Konstantin did the work I wanted to do already :) So it's mostly about
creating a sane user interface.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-20 10:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-17 16:18 Use of resize2fs for enabling 64-bit inodes Jan Kara
2015-04-17 18:58 ` Darrick J. Wong
2015-04-20 10:25 ` Jan Kara [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150420102557.GD3117@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).