On 11/29/12 10:40 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> >> But it's a weird inconsistency isn't it, and fixing it up in fsck should >> be the right thing to do anyway? > > Oh, I agree, but basically, as a result I'm going to put this patch on > hold until we do a bit more testing. I'm just not ready to push this > out on the maint branch just yet..... > > (The general rule is that I want to keep the maint branch in a state > where someone who wants to take a snapshot for a production > environment should feel generally comfortable to do this --- modulo > rollout/integration testing, of course. I'll keep it on an > es/fsck-int-node-fixup branch to make sure we don't lose it, but it's > something where I want to add some additional testing before I'm > comfortable rolling it out to the maint branch, just to make sure it > doesn't trigger any regression.) FWIW, I hacked xfstests to always check the scratch device after any test uses it, too, and I'm re-running with this change to be sure it'll run over every fs modification xfstests makes ... I'll send that upstream, too. > BTW, while I was experimenting with test cases I found another related > bug (but not a regression) where e2fsck isn't able to fix up a > specific fs corruption (see attached). It's unlikely to happen in > real life, but given how easily I was able to create something that > e2fsck can't fix, it's clear we were missing some synthetic test > cases. At one point I turned fsfuzzer into fsckfuzzer, but it was a "My God, it's full of bugs!" moment for most fileystems, IIRC. ;) But if anyone wants to generate some fsck bugs to fix . . . -Eric > - 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
