On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:22:43AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 05:17:55PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:09:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 05:06:35PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:54:10PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:49:46PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > > > > > From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In e2fsck_expand_directory() we don't handle a dir with inline data
> > > > > > because when this function is called the directory inode shouldn't
> > > > > > contains inline data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > e2fsck/pass3.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > > > e2fsck/rehash.c | 3 ++-
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/e2fsck/pass3.c b/e2fsck/pass3.c
> > > > > > index a379e9b..5052345 100644
> > > > > > --- a/e2fsck/pass3.c
> > > > > > +++ b/e2fsck/pass3.c
> > > > > > @@ -787,6 +787,18 @@ errcode_t e2fsck_expand_directory(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t dir,
> > > > > > es.ctx = ctx;
> > > > > > es.dir = dir;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * 'lost+found' dir shouldn't contains inline data. So we
> > > > > > + * need to clear this flag.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + if (ext2fs_inode_has_inline_data(fs, dir)) {
> > > > > > + retval = ext2fs_read_inode(fs, dir, &inode);
> > > > > > + if (retval)
> > > > > > + return retval;
> > > > > > + inode.i_flags &= ~EXT4_INLINE_DATA_FL;
> > > > > > + e2fsck_write_inode(ctx, dir, &inode, "clear inline_data flag");
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > retval = ext2fs_block_iterate3(fs, dir, BLOCK_FLAG_APPEND,
> > > > > > 0, expand_dir_proc, &es);
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying that lost+found can have inline_data set yet i_blocks is
> > > > > actually a block map/extent head? Or are we supposed to zero i_blocks?
> > > > >
> > > > > If we clear EXT4_INLINE_DATA_FL and then try to iterate blocks, are we setting
> > > > > ourselves up to read (formerly inline) dirents as a block map and iterate it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we care if the inode write fails?
> > > >
> > > > lost+found dir shouldn't have inline_data flag because this is a special
> > > > directory that it is preallocated some blocks when it is created because
> > > > we need to avoid to allocate some blocks for it when we check a file
> > > > system using e2fsck. So we need to clear inline_data flag if this dir
> > > > has this flag.
> > >
> > > How does get that flag in the first place?
> >
> > Technically, it shouldn't get this flag. Think about it again, it seems
> > that we don't need to handle this because it couldn't happen.
>
> Hmm. Maybe there should be an explicit entry and fix_problem() for this
> condition? I think there's some function in e2fsck that specifically messes
> with lost+found, but I'm going to bed before the parts of my brain that form
> English sentences really crashes. 8)
Good idea. Let me try it.
- 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
