[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170811212310.GA19995@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:23:10 -0400
From: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>, sandeen@...hat.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Release of e2fsprogs 1.43.5
* Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:30:44PM -0400, Eric Whitney wrote:
> > * Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>:
> > > On 8/5/17 9:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > I've released e2fsprogs 1.43.5 in all of the usual places; it's tagged
> > > > in the git trees on git.kernel.org, github, and sourceforge, and
> > > > available for download at:
> > > >
> > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/e2fsprogs/v1.43.5
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs-1.43.5.tar.gz
> > > >
> > > > The release notes for 1.43.5 can be found below.
> > >
> > > I'm getting test failures in rawhide with this, FWIW; on i686
> > > and arm:
> > >
> > > 336 tests succeeded 3 tests failed
> > > Tests failed: f_del_dup_quota f_quota f_quota_extent_opt
> > >
> > > Haven't dug into this yet (failures are on ephemeral build root
> > > on a build host), but has anyone else seen problems?
> > >
> >
> > Yes - I can reproduce these failures on Debian Jessie on 32 bit x86, as can
> > Ted.
> >
> > Reverting "libext2fs: fix compile errors/warnings" (a850bc56e0aa) resolves
> > the problem for me. In particular, undoing the format string changes in
> > scan_dquots_callback() fixes the failures. I think we need to use %lld as
> > dqb_curspace and dqb_curinodes are __le64,
>
> lib/support/quotaio.h does:
>
> typedef int64_t qsize_t;
>
> struct util_dqblk {
> ...
> qsize_t dqb_curinodes;
> ...
> qsize_t dqb_curspace;
> ...
> };
>
> and if they're int64_t then you could use PRId64.
>
> --D
My mistake - I grepped the wrong declarations of dqb_curinodes/dqb_curspace to
determine type. They're indeed int64_t in this case.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists