Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "ext3_data_trans_block".
Did you mean:
ext3_data_trans_blocks
2003 Feb 04
0
[PATCH] Fix signed use of i_blocks in ext3 truncate
...crazy if that happens, but at least we should
+ * try not to panic the whole kernel. */
+ if (needed < 2)
+ needed = 2;
+
+ /* But we need to bound the transaction so we don't overflow the
+ * journal. */
+ if (needed > EXT3_MAX_TRANS_DATA)
+ needed = EXT3_MAX_TRANS_DATA;
+
+ return EXT3_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS + needed;
+}
+
/*
* Truncate transactions can be complex and absolutely huge. So we need to
* be able to restart the transaction at a conventient checkpoint to make
@@ -100,14 +128,9 @@
static handle_t *start_transaction(struct inode *inode)
{
- long needed;
handle_t *result;
- n...
2001 Mar 28
1
Ext3 and LFS - possible? fatal?
Has anyone tried LFS (ie >2G files support) and Ext3 together?
Are there good reasons why this should/should not work?
I see the RH enterprise kernel patch set specifically does not attempt
both lfs and ext3, but the lfs patches themselves touch some reasonably
localised parts of ext2, so I would hope (without having dived in there
to test), that the ext3 changes would mirror that