Re: [ext2resize] Re: Odd stride issues

[Robert W. <rj...@du...>]

> I don't think this will have an effect.  If you specify "-O resize_inode"
> to mke2fs, it will pick a default of 1024x the specified filesystem size, 
> and the libext2 code will create a resize inode with enough blocks,
> after it has determined all of the needed parameters (ext2fs_initialize()
> maybe).  I _think_ there is a calculation in that same function which
> determines the inode table offset, based on the group blocks + 3 (super,
> block, inode bitmaps).  It probably needs s_reserved_gdt_blocks added in
> there and we will be happy.

Is this the one?

        /*
         * Overhead is the number of bookkeeping blocks per group.  It
         * includes the superblock backup, the group descriptor
         * backups, the inode bitmap, the block bitmap, and the inode
         * table.
         */
        overhead = (int) (2 + fs->inode_blocks_per_group);

        if (ext2fs_bg_has_super(fs, fs->group_desc_count - 1))
                overhead += 1 + fs->desc_blocks + super->s_reserved_gdt_blocks;

Looks like it only does this if there's a backup superblock there. 
Would this work:

        /*
         * Overhead is the number of bookkeeping blocks per group.  It
         * includes the superblock backup, the group descriptor
         * backups, the inode bitmap, the block bitmap, and the inode
         * table.
         */
        overhead = (int) (2 + fs->inode_blocks_per_group);

        /* if (ext2fs_bg_has_super(fs, fs->group_desc_count - 1)) */
                overhead += 1 + fs->desc_blocks + super->s_reserved_gdt_blocks;


Would that be safe?

Regards,
 Robert.