[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55FB82AD.4020302@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:19:09 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: clear uninit BG if allocating from new group
On 9/17/15 7:54 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:42:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> If resize2fs_get_alloc_block() allocates from a BLOCK_UNINIT
>>> group, nothing clears the UNINIT flag, so it is skipped when we
>>> go to write out modified bitmaps. This leads to post-resize2fs
>>> e2fsck errors; used blocks in UNINIT groups, not marked in the
>>> block bitmap.
>>>
>>> This shamelessly cuts & pastes clear_block_uninit() into
>>> resize2fs.c, and my problem goes away.
>>
>> Hmm... which test was it that exhibited this error?
>>
> r_ext4_small_bg
>
> Originally it was claimed that only a gcc change exposed it; I'm
> still trying to make sense of that. But the pre-resize image exhibits
> it with any recent resizefs when resized up to 2g as the test does.
I think the only reason the different gcc tweaked the bug is that the
test copies the e2fsck/e2fsck binary into the filesystem under test,
and the size changes depending on the compiler.
I can put up an fs image that exhibits it if you're curious...
-Eric
--
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