xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: check on-disk (not incore) btree root size in dfrag.c
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:22:07 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51DC39AC.4090003@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4F7225BA.40200@xxxxxxxxxx> <51C227ED.5010108@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130620170929.GY20932@xxxxxxx> <51DC39AC.4090003@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:26:20AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

Patch still looks good in light of the crc work.  Applied.

Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>

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