[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071214170106.GQ3214@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:01:06 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Flex_BG ialloc awareness V2.
On Dec 13, 2007 20:36 -0600, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> ... if the value in the super block is corrupted and
> does not represent the actual flexbg size, the inode allocation will
> behave in weird unexpected ways. Just as we check that the bitmaps are
> within the block group range (when not using flexbg), we should
> probably sanity check the size of the flexbg as reported in the super
> block.
>
> Or do you believe the check is unnecessary?
Well, I can imagine in some cases that the flexbg will not be completely
contiguous on disk (e.g. after a filesystem resize, if there are bad
blocks, etc). As long as the group descriptors themselves are correct
(i.e. referencing valid bitmaps/itable) then it shouldn't cause a mount
failure if the per-group data isn't strictly aligned according to the
superblock flexbg count.
We would need to validate the group descriptor separately though (e.g.
group checksums).
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
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