On 03:36, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Oct 25, 2006 11:44 +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > > Are you saying that ext3_set_bit() should simply be called with > > "ret_block" as its first argument? If yes, that is what the revised > > patch below does. > > You might need to call ext3_set_bit_atomic() (as claim_block() does, > not sure. I _think_ it doesn't matter much which one is used as on most archs ext3_set_bit_atomic() is only a wrapper for test_and_set_bit() just like ext3_set_bit() is. The only exceptions seem to be those archs that use the generic bitops and m68knommu. > The other issue is that you need to potentially set "num" bits in the > bitmap here, if those all overlap metadata. In fact, it might just > make more sense at this stage to walk all of the bits in the bitmaps, > the inode table and the backup superblock and group descriptor to see > if they need fixing also. I tried to implement this, but I could not find out how to check at this point whether a given bit (in the block bitmap, say) needs fixing. Thanks Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
