[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090402154123.GG10642@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:41:23 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@...tum.de>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-git: cannot mount ext4/loop
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 05:18:39PM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
>>> When I added the block range checks, initially I was assuming that
>>> when EXTENTS_FL is not set, the inode->i_data *always* contains
>>> references to further blocks. Ted showed me wrong and added the condition
>>>
>>> ISREG() || ISDIR() || ( ISLNK() && !is_fast_symlink() )
>>>
>>> before that assumption can be made. But maybe we need some further
>>> restraints?
>>
>> It's a endian-problem; we're missing le32_to_cpu() in that patch.
>> Sparc is big-endian.
>
> Sorry for that.
Could you also fix the types? bref should have a type of __le32, not
unsigned int, and when you pass in the reference to
__ext4_check_blockref(), there was an inappropriate cast to unsigned
int which hid kernel's natural type checking to catch these sorts of
problems.
I haven't had time yet to check your other patches; could you also
take a quick scan to make sure we have all of the byte-swapping calls
needed for proper big-endian checking, that we're using the correct
__le32 types and not doing any casts? I should have caught this when
I did my review of your patches, so this is also partially my fault.
Many thanks,
- 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