Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> ===================================================================
>> --- e2fsprogs-1.40.7.orig/resize/resize2fs.c
>> +++ e2fsprogs-1.40.7/resize/resize2fs.c
>> @@ -1168,11 +1168,12 @@ static errcode_t inode_scan_and_fix(ext2
>> * elsewhere in the inode table
>> */
>> while (1) {
>> - retval = ext2fs_get_next_inode(scan, &ino, &inode);
>> + retval = ext2fs_get_next_inode_full(scan, &ino, buf, inode_size);
>> if (retval) goto errout;
>> if (!ino)
>> break;
>>
>> + memcpy(&inode, buf, sizeof(struct ext2_inode));
>
> Should this be using "sizeof(struct ext2_inode)" or should it be using
> "sb->s_inode_size" instead (extracted from the right struct of course)?
well, let's see... I think we read "inode_size" in get_next_inode_full,
which is s_inode_size, into buf, which was allocated to size
inode_size/s_inode_size.
But "inode" is just a plain ol' little inode. I think really this
"inode" is just for convenience for accessing the normal inode fields....
But I now that I try livecd-creator with this patch, even on 128-byte
inodes, the fscks it runs is finding trouble post-resize (this despite
all the regression test passing...) *sigh* I think I'd better sit on
this problem for a while longer before I send the next patch :)
Ted, pls ignore this for now...
-Eric
--
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
