Subject: EFS question

From: Mike Shaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:58:22 -0400 (EDT)

Just to make sure I understand this correctly:
- when an inode has <= EFS_DIRECTEXTENTS extents, they're stored directly
in the inode.
- when an inode has > EFS_DIRECTEXTENTS extents, the extents in the
inode refer to contiguous block regions that contain extents referring
to the real data.

The EFS code that Alan posted, in addition to having a curious
aversion to structures, seemed to think that the first 4 bytes of
dinode->di_u were the block number of a block containing extents, and
thus doesn't work very well with files with numext >
EFS_DIRECTEXTENTS.  I just want to ensure that I make a sane fix.

Mike

-- 
#> Mike Shaver ([email-masked]) Ingenia Communications Corporation 
#>                 UNIX medicine man -- dark magick, cheap!            
#>                                                                     
#>  When the going gets tough, the tough give cryptic error messages.  
#>          "We believe in rough consensus and running code."

---

From: "William J. Earl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:33:19 -0700

> EFS_DIRECTEXTENTS.  I just want to ensure that I make a sane fix.
...

      The above is correct.  When there are indirect extents,
the offset field of the first indirect extent in the inode
contains the number of indirect extents, not a file offset.

---

From: Mike Shaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:41:47 -0400 (EDT)

Thus spake William J. Earl:
> When there are indirect extents,

_Ah!_
That makes _much_ more sense, then.

Mike

-- 
#> Mike Shaver ([email-masked]) Ingenia Communications Corporation 
#>              Commando Developer - Whatever It Takes
#>                                                                     
#> "See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like
#>    Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too." - Linus Torvalds