On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Zheng Liu wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:10:11 +0800 > From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not convert to indirect with bigalloc enabled > > 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. You're right, it make much more sense. I'll prepare a patch. Thanks! -Lukas > > 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
