On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:56:53AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > So this trips up on things like sockets, fifos, and block & char nodes. > > Also this is unhappy: > > > @@ -137,7 +141,7 @@ int e2fsck_pass1_check_device_inode(ext2 > > * If the index flag is set, then this is a bogus > > * device/fifo/socket > > */ > > - if (inode->i_flags & EXT2_INDEX_FL) > > + if (inode->i_flags & (EXT2_INDEX_FL | EXT4_EXTENTS_FL)) > > return 0; > > Do we really care if these have the extents flag set? IOW should we > make sure the kernel doesn't set the flag, or should we make e2fsck not > care... <Sigh> I think we need to get kernel patches into mainline ASAP not to set the EXTENTS_FL --- be conservative in what you send --- and at least for now, e2fsck needs to accept (and not complain or core dump) if EXTENTS_FL is set for files where ext2fs_inode_has_valid_blocks() returns false --- be liberal in what you accept. Eventually, after the kernel patches hit mainline, we could change e2fsck to automatically fix all of these in preen mode, just for cleanliness sake. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
