On 5/16/12 9:17 PM, Tao Ma wrote: > On 05/16/2012 11:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 5/16/12 9:55 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>> On 05/16/2012 09:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 5/16/12 3:49 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper >>>>> group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free >>>>> count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like: >>>> >>>> This is only in the ! EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM case I guess? >>>> That would be worth mentioning in the summary & changelog. >>> sure, I will add it in v2. >>>> >>>> I guess you were testing without that for some reason? >>> See my comments below. I found it when running xfstests 269. >> >> Still not sure how you got a filesystem w/o that feature though, unless >> I am forgetting something obvious. Isn't it on by default? > oh, I see. Yes, we mkfs the system with the following configurations: > mke2fs -O ^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg,ext_attr > Maybe that's the reason why it has never be met by others before. ;) Ok, good. I figured it was in some barely-reachable corner of the infinite test matrix ;) -Eric > Thanks > Tao > -- > 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
