On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:30:57PM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> @@ -982,20 +997,13 @@ static int ext4_ext_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> err = -EIO;
> goto cleanup;
> }
> - while (path[i].p_idx <= EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr)) {
> - ext_debug("%d: move %d:%llu in new index %llu\n", i,
> - le32_to_cpu(path[i].p_idx->ei_block),
> - ext4_idx_pblock(path[i].p_idx),
> - newblock);
> - /*memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx++,
> - sizeof(struct ext4_extent_idx));
> - neh->eh_entries++;
> - BUG_ON(neh->eh_entries > neh->eh_max);*/
> - path[i].p_idx++;
> - m++;
> - }
> + /* start copy indexes */
> + m = EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr) - path[i].p_idx++;
> + ext_debug("cur 0x%p, last 0x%p\n", path[i].p_idx,
> + EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr));
> + ext4_ext_show_move(inode, path, newblock, i);
> if (m) {
> - memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx - m,
> + memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx,
> sizeof(struct ext4_extent_idx) * m);
> le16_add_cpu(&neh->eh_entries, m);
> }
So the old code mutates path[i].p_idx, where as your new code doesn't.
The one thing that scares me is that ext4_ext_insert_index() is passed
&path[at], the function preferences path[at].p_idx.
Have you looked at this case?
- Ted
--
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
