Re: [PATCH 15/19] mkfs: don't treat files as though they are block devices

[Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:ÂÂ

[

âsnip]â

I still think this patch might need a reset though :)

Thanks,
-Eric

âOn few places, the original patch looked as if files had direct IO still enabledâ (using platform_findsize...), and I think it was causing some failures - fixing issues is why I did most of the changes.

I will revert to the original version and see what exactly fails. But with being Friday late afternoon, the results will be available the next week (Wednesday and further, all my courses at university are stuffed in Mon/Tue).

âAll right. So I run the tests on the set with both this and the original version of this patch and there is no change in results. Here and there some tests failed on one run, but on other runs they are ok and I can't get them to fail again (namely, xfs/033, 073 and 085 did this).

It looks like whatever the issues were to start the changes, they are already resolved. Thus, I will send the original patch in the next batch.

âI'm taking it back, one tests fails, most likely it happened when I removed patch 17 - xfsprogs: disable truncating of files.

If I do "mkfs.xfs $file", it doesn't know the old size to recreate it. I'm working on a change for this patch to fix this issue, but I'm not entirely certain how to proceed. The right place to get the size seems to be get_topology(). I could save it into xi.dsize, but thenÂlibxfs_init() zeroes it.

So I think that I might rather convert the measured size do char *dsize and pretend that it is an user-given value. But this looks to me more like a hack. On the other side, any other way would require further changes in the code to convert the char* to int as soon as possible - which does not belong to this patch...

Diff of the change:

@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ static void get_topology(

        fd = open(dfile, flags, 0666);

        if (fd >= 0) {

- Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â platform_findsizes(dfile, fd, &dummy, &ft->lsectorsize);

+ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â platform_findsizes(dfile, fd, &xi->dsize, &ft->lsectorsize);

            close(fd);

            ft->psectorsize = ft->lsectorsize;

        } else

@@ -2273,6 +2273,18 @@ _("Minimum block size for CRC enabled filesystems is %d bytes.\n"),

    memset(&ft, 0, sizeof(ft));

    get_topology(&xi, &ft, force_overwrite);

+ Â Â Â /*

+ Â Â Â Â* If it is an existing file and we have no info about it

+ Â Â Â Â* like in case of "mkfs.xfs some-file", we need to save the size

+ Â Â Â Â* of the file to somewhere where it can be read later.

+ Â Â Â Â*/

+ Â Â Â if (xi.disfile && !xi.dcreat && xi.dsize) {

+ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â long long num = xi.dsize * ft.lsectorsize;

+ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â int length = snprintf(NULL, 0,"%lld", num);

+ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â dsize = calloc( length + 1 ,sizeof(char));

+ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sprintf(dsize, "%lld", num);

+ Â Â Â }

+

    if (!ssflag) {

        /*

        Â* Unless specified manually on the command line use the

So, what do you think about this?

Thanks,

Jan

--

Jan Tulak

jtulak@xxxxxxxxxxÂ/ jan@xxxxxxxx