Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:07:05AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> EXTENTS: >>> (65-80): 60720-60735, (81-222 [uninit]): 1181574-1181715, (223-229): 1181716-118 >>> 1722 >>> debugfs: >>> >>> So it looks like there's a race which can cause ext4 to somehow miss an >>> i_size update. >> Are you sure it is a failure to update i_size, or is it possibly an >> fallocate that extends the block count beyond i_size? > > Look at the EXTENTS report from debugfs; blocks 81-222 are > uninitialized from an fallocate, but block 223-229 are initialized. > > - Ted This was from test 013? If so, that calls ltp's fsstress, which does not call fallocate nor posix_fallocate. It only does preallocation on xfs via the old xfs-specific ioctl (though I suppose we should add it...) -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
