[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: check on-disk (not incore) btree root size in dfrag.c

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: check on-disk (not incore) btree root size in dfrag.c
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:26:20 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130620170929.GY20932@xxxxxxx>
References: <4F7225BA.40200@xxxxxxxxxx> <51C227ED.5010108@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130620170929.GY20932@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
On 6/20/13 12:09 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 04:51:41PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 3/27/12 3:40 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> xfs_swap_extents_check_format() contains checks to make sure that
>>> original and the temporary files during defrag are compatible;
>>> Gabriel VLASIU ran into a case where xfs_fsr returned EINVAL
>>> because the tests found the btree root to be of size 120,
>>> while the fork offset was only 104; IOW, they overlapped.
>>> However, this is just due to an error in the
>>> xfs_swap_extents_check_format() tests, because it is checking
>>> the in-memory btree root size against the on-disk fork offset.
>>> We should be checking the on-disk sizes in both cases.
>>> This patch adds a new macro to calculate this size, and uses
>>> it in the tests.
>>> With this change, the filesystem image provided by Gabriel
>>> allows for proper file degragmentation.
>> I think this and the followup patch 2/1 got lost.
>> Ben, any idea?
> Yeah.  Sorry Eric.

I see the first patch is now merged.  Can you please also merge the
2nd patch?  It is also reviewed already.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>