Hi Andreas,
On May 26, 2006, Andreas wrote:
> At least part of this patch can be included into the patch series that
> Mingming has posted to allow larger block sizes on architectures that
> support it. This doesn't need a separate COMPAT flag itself, since
> older kernels will already refuse to mount a filesystem with
> large blocks.
Do you mention block size? I don't use the COMPAT flag for large block
size, but for >2G blocks.
> On May 25, 2006 21:49 +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> > @@ -1463,11 +1463,17 @@ static int ext3_fill_super (struct super
> > + if (blocksize > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs: cannot mount filesystem with "
> > + "blocksize %u larger than PAGE_SIZE %u on %s\n",
> > + blocksize, PAGE_SIZE, sb->s_id);
> > + goto failed_mount;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (blocksize < EXT3_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE ||
> > - blocksize > EXT3_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE) {
> > + blocksize > EXT3_EXTENDED_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE) {
>
> We may as well just change EXT3_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to be 65536,
> because no other
> code uses this value. It is already 65536 in the e2fsprogs.
Agree.
>
> > - printk(KERN_ERR
> > - "EXT3-fs: Unsupported filesystem
> blocksize %d on %s.\n",
> > - blocksize, sb->s_id);
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs: Unsupported
> filesystem blocksize %d on %s.\n",
> > + blocksize, sb->s_id);
>
> I'm not sure why you changed the formatting of this message
> to now be longer
> than 80 columns.
Oops, you are right.
Thanks a lot, Andreas!
Cheers, sho
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.