On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:42:08 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jun 02, 2008 17:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Subject: ext3: fix online resize bug > > > From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > There is a bug when we are trying to verify that the reserve inode's > > > double indirect blocks point back to the primary gdt blocks. The fix is > > > obvious, we need to mod the gdb count by the addr's per block. You can > > > verify this with the following test case > > > > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=disk1 seek=1024 count=1 bs=100M > > > losetup /dev/loop1 disk1 > > > pvcreate /dev/loop1 > > > vgcreate loopvg1 /dev/loop1 > > > lvcreate -l 100%VG loopvg1 -n looplv1 > > > mkfs.ext3 -J size=64 -b 1024 /dev/loopvg1/looplv1 > > > mount /dev/loopvg1/looplv1 /mnt/loop > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=disk2 seek=1024 count=1 bs=50M > > > losetup /dev/loop2 disk2 > > > pvcreate /dev/loop2 > > > vgextend loopvg1 /dev/loop2 > > > lvextend -l 100%VG /dev/loopvg1/looplv1 > > > resize2fs /dev/loopvg1/looplv1 > > > > > > without this patch the resize2fs fails, with it the resize2fs succeeds. > > > > > > > Could I please gather some reviews and ackings on this? > > You can add a Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx> > The wrapping is clearly correct, because the end of the res = 0 loop > is itself wrapping "data" after it exceeds "end". The current code is > just broken if data >= end to start with. OK, thanks. I made that an Acked-by: (as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I could have made it a Reviewed-by: (which is stronger) but whatever. > > Also, do we think it is 2.6.25.x material? > > It definitely contains no risk unless you are doing an online resize. That didn't answer my question ;) -- 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
