On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:18:05PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> With bigalloc feature enabled we do not support indirect addressing at all
> so we have to prevent extent addressing to indirect addressing
> conversion in this case. The problem has been introduced with the commit
> "ext4: support simple conversion of extent-mapped inodes to use i_blocks"
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/extents.c | 4 ++++
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index 6c5a70a..ddb6628 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -4735,6 +4735,10 @@ int ext4_ind_migrate(struct inode *inode)
> (!ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS)))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(inode->i_sb,
> + EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_BIGALLOC))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> ret = ext4_ext_check_inode(inode);
> if (ret)
I am wandering whether ext4_ind_migrate needs to be moved into
fs/ext4/migrate.c file. Maybe it is better.
Regards,
- Zheng
--
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
