Probably would need an incompat flag for changing the inode size anyways,
so old utilities wouldn't set that anyways.
> I'm somewhat concerned about the following: last block of inode table
> fragment may have less inodes than the rest. Reason: number of inodes
> per group should be a multiple of 8 and with inodes bigger than 128
> bytes it may give such effect. Comments?
I don't _think_ that there is a requirement for a multiple-of-8 inodes
per group. OK, looking into mke2fs (actually lib/ext2fs/initialize.c)
it _does_ show that it needs to be a multiple of 8, but I'm not sure
exactly what the "bitmap splicing code" mentioned in the comment is.
In the end, it doesn't really matter much - if we go with multiple-of-2
inode sizes, all it means is that we may need to have multiple-of-2 (or
possibly 4 for 512-byte inodes in a 1k block filesystem) inode table
blocks in each group. Not a big deal. The code already handles this.
> I would really, really like to end up with accurate description of
> inode table layout somewhere in Documentation/filesystems. Heck, I
> volunteer to write it down and submit into the tree ;-)
I can write a few words as well.
-- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/