On 2010-08-23, at 19:34, Justin Maggard wrote:
> Creating a 4TB file on a filesystem with the 64bit flag set results in e2fsck consistently complaining about i_blocks being wrong, with confusing messages like this:
>
> That appears to be caused by ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() checking for the EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE in the wrong place. Fix it.
>
> - ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
> + ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_compat &
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
This isn't the first time that we've had problems like this, and it won't be the last time unless there is a better API for checking these flags.
I've long thought about having something like:
#define EXT4_CHECK_COMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_compat & \
EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_ ## flag)
#define EXT4_CHECK_RO_COMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_ro_compat & \
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_ ## flag)
#define EXT4_CHECK_INCOMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_incompat & \
EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ ## flag)
#define EXT4_SET_COMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_compat |= \
EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_ ## flag; } while(0)
#define EXT4_SET_RO_COMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_ro_compat |= \
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_ ##flag;} while(0)
#define EXT4_SET_INCOMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_incompat |= \
EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ ## flag;} while(0)
This will produce a compile error if the flag name and the macro name don't match. Unfortunately, for e2fsprogs we will need 3 sets of such macros because the feature flags are named EXT2_*, EXT3_*, and EXT4_*, depending on when they were added. For the kernel code that wouldn't be needed.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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
