Hi Alex,
With the latest changes i see both group preallocation and inode
preallocation being used by mballoc. Since the choice is now made with
file size not just the request size. (None of the test were actually
using inode prealloc previously). Now that the test are using inode prealloc i
see
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:01:14PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi,
This is the update for mballoc patch. The changes are result of merging
with the lustre cvs version of mballoc. I liked this patch better because
it is simple. I also the updated the commit message. The update commit
4th time's the charm?
Note, the calculations Andreas I were discussing only work properly
for stripe = blocks per group... I don't know if we'd need to enforce
that at mount time?
-
I ran into a potential overflow in ext4_mb_scan_aligned,
and went looking for others in mballoc.
On Jan 08, 2008 14:33 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
@@ -190,8 +190,13 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_device_size(const c
ioctl(fd, BLKGETSIZE64, size64) = 0) {
if ((sizeof(*retblocks) sizeof(unsigned long long))
((size64 / blocksize) 0x)) {
-
On Jan 08, 2008 13:54 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Note, the calculations Andreas I were discussing only work properly
for stripe = blocks per group... I don't know if we'd need to enforce
that at mount time?
I think that would be prudent, but can be done in a separate patch.
If the RAID
