On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:11:50PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:46:57AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > > > This patch just looks wrong. RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM is the old feature, > > and doesn't imply that there will be a checksum in the inode bitmap > > block. Shouldn't this be RO_COMPAT_METADATA_CSUM? > > Correction; the big problem here is that check_inode_bitmap_checksum() > (and in the next e2fsck page, check_block_bitmap_checksum()) are are > doing their thing without actually checking for > RO_COMPAT_METADATA_CSUM). These code paths shouldn't be getting > activated at all for non-METADATA_CSUM file systems. But they are. You're right, the function could be optimized to exit early if metadata_csum isn't set. The bitmap verify function won't flag errors when metadata_csum is unset, at least, but I suppose it is unecessary looping and IO. --D > (And the check_block_bitmap_checksum() function is using > EXT2_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP where it needs to use EXT2_CLUSTERS_PER_GROUP or > it will end up corrupting memory which will cause the bigalloc-related > test f_dup_ba blow up. But again, this code path shouldn't have been > getting activated in the first place.) > > - 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 > -- 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
