On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 10:44 -0400, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:10:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:27:57PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > Probably worthwhile to make those !EXT4_OS_HURD checks likely()? > > Yes, and I was planning on optimizing the checks a bit more, but it > makes sense to do that in a separate patch, since this is not the only > place where we are making EXT4_OS_HURD checks. > > > > > Does it make sense to support the format at all given that it's unlikely > > to get any testing? > > There are some crazy people still trying to make the Hurd a viable > file system. There's even a Debian port for it. :-) The problem is > that some of the folks who are still trying to make the Hurd real want > to use ext2 as an interchange format between Linux and Hurd, and > presumably that's how they ran across this particular bug. [...] That, plus we turned on CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 for Debian kernel packages starting with Linux 3.11. It looks like ext2 and ext3 would always initialise i_version to 1 in memory; does it matter that you're changing that to 0 for Hurd filesystems? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part