[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201006031834.GA5797@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 23:18:34 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with
overlapped bitmaps
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 07:51:10PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > Could /somebody/ please document the ondisk format changes that are
> > > associated with this feature?
> >
> > I pretty much had to sort it out by looking at a combination of
> > e2fsprogs and the kernel, and a lot of experimentation, until I ended up
> > with something that the kernel was completely happy with without a
> > single complaint.
> >
> > I'd be happy to write up a summary of the format.
>
> Seems like a good idea, particularly since you're asking for a format
> change that requires kernel support and the ondisk format documentation
> lives under Documentation/. That said...
> > If you set up the rest of the metadata consistently with it (for
> > instance, 0 free blocks and 0 free inodes), you'll only get a single
> > complaint, from the e2fsck equivalent of block_validity. See
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=956509 for details on
> > that;
>
> ...Ted shot down this whole thing six months ago.
>
> The Debian bug database is /not/ the designated forum to discuss changes
> to the ondisk format; linux-ext4 is.
What Josh is proposing I'm pretty sure would also break "e2fsck -E
unshare_blocks", so that's another reason not to accept this as a
valid format change.
As far as I'm concerned, contrib/e2fsdroid is the canonical definition
of how to create valid file systems with shared_blocks.
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists