On 05/20/2014 07:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/14/2014 05:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> It turns out that the primary 64K "Boot Area A" is too small for some >> applications and/or some architectures. >> >> When I discussed this with Chris Mason, he pointed out that the area >> beyond the superblock is also unused, up until at least the megabyte >> point (from my reading of the mkfs code, it is actually slightly more >> than a megabyte.) >> >> This is present in all versions of mkfs.btrfs that has the superblock at >> 64K (some very early ones had the superblock at 16K, but that format is >> no longer supported), so all that is needed is formalizing the specs as >> to the use of this area. >> >> My suggestion is that 64-128K is reserved for extension of the >> superblock and/or any other filesystem uses, and 128-1024K is defined as >> Boot Area B. However, if there may be reason to reserve more, then we >> should do that. Hence requesting a formal decision as to the extent and >> ownership of this area. >> >> -hpa >> > > Ping on this? If I don't hear back on this I will probably just go > ahead and use 128K-1024K. Hi Peter, We do leave the first 1MB of each device alone. Can we do 256K-1024K for the boot loader? We don't have an immediate need for the extra space, but I'd like to reserve a little more than the extra 64KB. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
