I don't know what the reason really was for that code in the first place
(Miles wrote it). I suspect it was just transcribed from ufs. In the ufs
format it is improper for the block count to be nonzero in a free inode.
For ext2fs, the observed behavior of the Linux kernel is all we have to
constitute a specification of the filesystem format. If it's not improper
in the ext2fs format for a free inode to have a nonzero block count, then
that's the way it is and we should not complain.
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
