Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:08:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Some of these fields could usefully be made unsigned others not
> (for example fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes). So just
> going through and making everything unsigned is not the right
> approach. I will make a pass through and consider changing some
> of these fields once the tree opens back up, but not at this
> point in time when we are trying to keep changes to a minimum
> and do not have time for extensive testing.
>
> Kirk McKusick
I'm not in a hurry.. It's just something that I thought should be
considered..... "eventually".
BTW how can fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes be -ve?
In theory they should never go negative. But if an inconsistency
occurs (for example a crash and remount before background fsck
has run) the accounting can get out of whack and the numbers go
negative. We check for this happening and take corrective action.
If they were changed to unsigned, we would miss the negative
transition and instead suddenly think that we had a huge amount
of pending space to free. So this is an example where changing
them to unsigned would break existing code.
Kirk McKusick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
