From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Ivanov Subject: few ext2/ext3 questions (i_blocks usage and updating superblock in r-only) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:27:27 +0300 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]:58844 "EHLO mail-ew0-f216.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751775Ab0CIP1a (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:27:30 -0500 Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so760438ewy.28 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:27:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, What is correct way to treat i_blocks? i_blocks is a block counter, but its values differ from real number of used blocks (e.g. 1 block is used and written to i_block, but i_blocks is set to 8 and if I set i_blocks to 1 e2fsck always wants to set it to 8). As I understand preallocation shouldn't affect i_blocks and there are no unix holes. Nothing on fs should be updated, when it's mounted in r-only (I mean mount time, mount point attributes of superblock), right? Btw, when I don't have problems with i_blocks, e2fsck's exit status is 1 (my ext2 implementation is guilty), but it doesn't say what was wrong even with "-v". How can I get more verbose results? Thanks in advance for any help. -- Evgeniy Ivanov