[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB46D2D.1050107@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:14:53 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Protect group inode free counting with group lock.
On 5/16/12 9:17 PM, Tao Ma wrote:
> On 05/16/2012 11:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 9:55 AM, Tao Ma wrote:
>>> On 05/16/2012 09:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/12 3:49 AM, Tao Ma wrote:
>>>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper
>>>>> group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free
>>>>> count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like:
>>>>
>>>> This is only in the ! EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM case I guess?
>>>> That would be worth mentioning in the summary & changelog.
>>> sure, I will add it in v2.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you were testing without that for some reason?
>>> See my comments below. I found it when running xfstests 269.
>>
>> Still not sure how you got a filesystem w/o that feature though, unless
>> I am forgetting something obvious. Isn't it on by default?
> oh, I see. Yes, we mkfs the system with the following configurations:
> mke2fs -O ^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg,ext_attr
> Maybe that's the reason why it has never be met by others before. ;)
Ok, good. I figured it was in some barely-reachable corner
of the infinite test matrix ;)
-Eric
> Thanks
> Tao
> --
> 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
--
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