From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Dushistov Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: fill i_size at directory creation Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:18:48 +0300 Message-ID: <20060204061848.GA11894@rain.homenetwork> References: <20060131234634.GA13773@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20060201200410.GA11747@rain.homenetwork> <20060203174613.GA7823@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20060204011815.GA7837@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.mail.ru ([194.67.23.121]:25671 "EHLO mx1.mail.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946316AbWBDGac (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2006 01:30:32 -0500 To: Alexey Dobriyan Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060204011815.GA7837@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:18:15AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > How about this as a first small step? > + inode->i_size = UFS_SB(sb)->s_uspi->s_fsize; It looks very strange for me. During "fill super" we set block size of device to fragment size, so sb->s_blocksize and UFS_SB(sb)->s_uspi->s_fsize should be the same size on your system: 2048, hence question: what difference between your and my patch? -- /Evgeniy