[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 19:34:05 -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 Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 11:53:16AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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....
I just tried building e2fsprogs 1.42.8 on a powerpc system in a Debian
unstable (sid) chroot, and I'm not able to reproduce this test
failure. I tried building using both gcc 4.6.4 and gcc 4.8, in case
it was a compiler bug.
So again, there's something really, REALLY wrong....
- 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