[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080218195332.GK25098@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:53:32 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][7/28] e2fsprogs-extents.patch
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:56:53AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> So this trips up on things like sockets, fifos, and block & char nodes.
>
> Also this is unhappy:
>
> > @@ -137,7 +141,7 @@ int e2fsck_pass1_check_device_inode(ext2
> > * If the index flag is set, then this is a bogus
> > * device/fifo/socket
> > */
> > - if (inode->i_flags & EXT2_INDEX_FL)
> > + if (inode->i_flags & (EXT2_INDEX_FL | EXT4_EXTENTS_FL))
> > return 0;
>
> Do we really care if these have the extents flag set? IOW should we
> make sure the kernel doesn't set the flag, or should we make e2fsck not
> care...
<Sigh>
I think we need to get kernel patches into mainline ASAP not to set
the EXTENTS_FL --- be conservative in what you send --- and at least
for now, e2fsck needs to accept (and not complain or core dump) if
EXTENTS_FL is set for files where ext2fs_inode_has_valid_blocks()
returns false --- be liberal in what you accept.
Eventually, after the kernel patches hit mainline, we could change
e2fsck to automatically fix all of these in preen mode, just for
cleanliness sake.
- 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