From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, meyering@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Difference in statvfs(2) block count with ext2 and very recent Linux 3.2.0 kernels
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:33:19 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EC3E5CF.6030805@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111116095418.GA8054@amd.home.annexia.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/11 3:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We do some automated testing of the kernel and ext2/3/4 filesystems,
> and noticed that the block count returned by statvfs(2) for plain
> *ext2* filesystems has changed with the latest 3.2.0rc1 kernel.
>
> This is probably just because of more accurate block accounting, but I
> just wanted to check that it isn't a bug.
>
> This posting contains the numbers and a reproducer:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2011-November/msg00051.html
>
> Rich.
>
Note that it is a plain *ext2* filesystem run through the *ext4* driver,
in Fedora, and it was tracked down to commit f975d6bcc7a698a10cc755115e27d3612dcfe322
ext4: teach ext4_statfs() to deal with clusters if bigalloc is enabled
according to the above post...
I will try to look at this to see just why the change affects ext2, unless
Ted knows offhand.
- -Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=U1OD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-16 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-16 9:54 Difference in statvfs(2) block count with ext2 and very recent Linux 3.2.0 kernels Richard W.M. Jones
2011-11-16 16:33 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2011-11-16 16:43 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2011-11-16 17:40 ` Eric Sandeen
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=4EC3E5CF.6030805@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=meyering@redhat.com \
--cc=rjones@redhat.com \
/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).