[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090313003855.GM17104@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:55 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@...tum.de>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix bogus BUG_ONs in in mballoc code
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Thiemo Nagel reported that:
>
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=image.ext4 bs=1M count=2
> # mkfs.ext4 -v -F -b 1024 -m 0 -g 512 -G 4 -I 128 -N 1 \
> -O large_file,dir_index,flex_bg,extent,sparse_super image.ext4
> # mount -o loop image.ext4 mnt/
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=mnt/file
>
> oopsed, with a BUG_ON in ext4_mb_normalize_request because
> size == EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP
>
> It appears to me (esp. after talking to Andreas) that the BUG_ON
> is bogus; a request of exactly EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP should
> be allowed, though larger sizes do indicate a problem.
Clearly we should make this change to avoid the BUG_ON; but stupid
question, why shouldn't we allow sizes larger than
EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP?
Especially with flex_bg, it is possible for an allocation size >
EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP to be satisifed, especially if the filesystem
isn't that full yet, and it might even make sense to request a larger
allocation for video files that are getting preallocated, for
example....
- 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