On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:27:24PM -0700, Justin Maggard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Dilger<adilger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I shouldn't need e2fsprogs to be compiled 64-bit as well, right? > >> Currently I've got a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace. > > > > Yes, that is a potential problem. > > It looks like it certainly is a problem with current e2fsprogs "pu" > branch. My latest findings from basic testing (just mkfs.ext4, then > e2fsck -fy, and -- if e2fsck modified the filesystem -- another e2fsck > -fy) are as follows: > > 1) 64-bit mke2fs + 64-bit e2fsck > Appears to work fine. No errors reported anywhere. > > 2) 64-bit mke2fs + 32-bit e2fsck > Also appears to work fine. llverfs --partial looked okay, and e2fsck > reported no errors. > > 3) 32-bit mke2fs + 64-bit e2fsck > Mkfs.ext4 must have done something wrong, but e2fsck was able to fix > it up, and future e2fsck (32 or 64-bit) runs reported no issues. > e2fsck output was: > Block bitmap differences: +(1063780365--1063780367) > +(1063780381--1063780383) +(1063782048--1063782431) > -(5359140864--5359173631) > Running mkfs through valgrind doesn't show any obvious errors. > > 4) 32-bit mke2fs + 32-bit e2fsck > Same as (3), for the mkfs and the first e2fsck again reported fixing > the same block bitmap differences. But after the first e2fsck was > complete, the second e2fsck run reported: > e2fsck: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks... > Group descriptor 0 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > Group descriptor 1 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > ... > Group descriptor 81774 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > followed by tons of block bitmap differences. Great, this is really helpful. I've added it to my todo list. -VAL -- 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
