ext4_inode difference between e2fsprogs and ext4

ext4_inode difference between e2fsprogs and ext4

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

in e2fsprogs we have

union { 
                struct {
                        __u16   l_i_blocks_hi;
                        __u16   i_pad1;
                        __u16   l_i_uid_high;   /* these 2 fields    */
                        __u16   l_i_gid_high;   /* were reserved2[0] */
                        __u32   l_i_reserved2;
                } linux2;



In ext4 we have

  union { 
                struct {
                        __le16  l_i_reserved1;  /* Obsoleted fragment number/size which are removed in ext4 */
                        __le16  l_i_file_acl_high;
                        __le16  l_i_uid_high;   /* these 2 fields */
                        __le16  l_i_gid_high;   /* were reserved2[0] */
                        __u32   l_i_reserved2;
                } linux2;


Last week we were discussing about taking that l_i_reserved1 and using that for making file_acl 64 bit and using the
lower l_i_reserved2 for 64 bit dir_acl. 

Now where will i put l_i_blocks_hi ?

-aneesh

Re: ext4_inode difference between e2fsprogs and ext4

[Andreas Dilger]

On Oct 11, 2007  14:30 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> In ext4 we have
> 
>  union { 
>                struct {
>                        __le16  l_i_reserved1;  /* Obsoleted fragment 
>                        number/size which are removed in ext4 */
>                        __le16  l_i_file_acl_high;
>                        __le16  l_i_uid_high;   /* these 2 fields */
>                        __le16  l_i_gid_high;   /* were reserved2[0] */
>                        __u32   l_i_reserved2;
>                } linux2;
> 
> 
> Last week we were discussing about taking that l_i_reserved1 and using that 
> for making file_acl 64 bit and using the lower l_i_reserved2 for 64 bit dir_acl. 

We have l_i_file_acl_high already to give us 48-bit i_file_acl, which is
sufficient, IMHO.  There is no need to have a larger i_dir_acl since this
field is only really used for i_size_high and should be renamed as such
instead of just being a macro.

> Now where will i put l_i_blocks_hi ?

Just where it is now - in l_i_reserved1...

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.