Ted, What about the idea to stop using the blocks count for doing the fast/slow symlink check, and instead use i_size? IMHO this is far more robust than using the blocks count, since we've repeatedly seen bugs when the number of blocks allocated to an inode changes for done reason (e.g. xattrs, bigalloc, multi-block xattrs in the future). AFAIK the kernel and e2fsprogs have always been consistent with symlinks <= 60 bytes being stored in the inode. Cheers, Andreas > On Jan 6, 2014, at 7:51, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:13:33PM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> From: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> can be reproduced by xfstests 62 with bigalloc and 128bit size inode. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <yangyongqiang01@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, applied. > > - 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 -- 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
