|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2004-05-06 12:31:59
|
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 13:23, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >
> > Well then your logic in ntfsresize is wrong. The user who had the same
> > problem was able to resize to way lower than the reported size by --info
> > and he was using ntfsresize...
>
> Impossible. The relevant value is stored in resize->last_unsupp. Before
> any real action, for both resizing and --info it's calculated exactly the
> same way, same code path.
>
> At check_shrink_constraints() if --info was used then the function returns
> and advise_on_resize() immediately prints resize->last_unsupp then exits.
> If --info wasn't used then there is this condition instead:
>
> if (new_size <= resize->last_unsupp)
> err_exit("The fragmentation type, you have, isn't "
> "supported yet. Rerun ntfsresize\nwith "
> "the -i option to estimate the smallest "
> "shrunken volume size supported.\n");
>
> This means that the shrunken size can't be less than the value reported by
> --info becuase ntfsresize exits with the above message without doing
> anything resizing related.
>
> I also have automatic test cases that test this and these tests never
> failed.
Fair enough. Perhaps you have a bug in what --info shows? Certainly
the person on IRC was claiming that --info told him he could only resize
to just over half of the partition size but he managed to resize to a
lot smaller than that...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ &
http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
|
