[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 11:53:16 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: allocate inode table wholly within group
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:14:35PM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Building e2fsprogs 1.42.8 on ppc, I got this:
>
> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
>
> Because during the resize step it did this:
>
> Itable move group 1 block 1030->1092 (diff 62)
>
> but during e2fsck it found:
>
> /tmp/e2fsprogs-tmp.uiFhgP: Inode table for group 1 is not in group. (block 1092)
>
> i.e. from dumpe2fs we can see:
>
> Group 1: (Blocks 1025-1110)
> Backup superblock at 1025, Group descriptors at 1026-1026
> Block bitmap at 1090 (+65), Inode bitmap at 1091 (+66)
> Inode table at 1092-1123 (+67)
> ^^^^ beyond end of block group
There seems to be something wrong here. The test file system was
created like this:
mke2fs -t ext2 -O ^resize_inode -b 1024 -g 1024 -qF /tmp/foo.img 64M
The file system hence should have 64 block groups, and dumpe2fs before
the resize looks like this on an x86 system:
Group 1: (Blocks 1025-2048)
Backup superblock at 1025, Group descriptors at 1026-1027
Block bitmap at 1028 (+3), Inode bitmap at 1029 (+4)
Inode table at 1030-1061 (+5)
... and after:
Group 1: (Blocks 1025-2048)
Backup superblock at 1025, Group descriptors at 1026-1089
Block bitmap at 1090 (+65), Inode bitmap at 1091 (+66)
Inode table at 1092-1123 (+67)
Note the range of block group #1: 1025-2048, whereas on the PPC,
apparently the range is quite different: Group 1: (Blocks 1025-1110)
So there's something else going really wrong here....
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists