Hi, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jun 29, 2009 15:03 +0900, Akira Fujita wrote: >>> Size: 4050385 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 regular file >>> Device: fd12h/64786d Inode: 688755 Links: 1 >>> Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 1000/ sesse) Gid: ( 1000/ sesse) >>> Access: 2009-05-30 03:08:38.724454316 +0200 >>> Modify: 2008-09-01 20:38:26.135589449 +0200 >>> Change: 2008-09-01 20:38:26.135589449 +0200 >> File size is "4050385" but Blocks is "0" >> probably means blocks are not allocated yet or file is *corrupted*. >> Is your mp3 file available? > > Well, this is a sparse file for some reason (e.g. failed mp3 p2p download). > Ah, may be so. >> Anyway, with this patch, 0 blocks file is skipped, >> therefore the segmentation fault you had will not happen. > > Is it possible that the code has not been tested with sparse files? > In that case, the check for size == 0 is only going to catch a single > case of problem, and not handle general sparse files. > I have tested files that have sparse blocks (e.g. files that have sparse blocks in its beginning, middle and those combinations) and got fine results. Unfortunately, like this case, only 0 blocks file (all sparse blocks) has not been tested yet. But the kernel space (EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXTENT) does not have this kind of issue. Because there is a check of whether the extents of orig_inode that ext4_ext_find_extent() gets is NULL. If extents is NULL or ext4_ext_find_extent() fails, ext4_move_extents() returns an error value (e.g. EINVAL) to the user space. Regards, Akira Fujita -- 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
