On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 08:19:47PM +0400, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:00 AM, <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0400, a3at.mail@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> After I tested ext4 dev branch (eb3e7abb161ad5), without any xfs-tests complaints,
> >> I understand what goes wrong, you have not last version of
> >> this patch, the latest is v3.
> >> (Actually you have description from last patch, but not the latest changes.)
> >
> > What I did was to take your v3 version of the patch, and then since
> > that patch removed the label failed_mount5, I changed instances of
> > failed_mount4a to failed_mount5, just for aesthetic reasons.
> >
> > So there is no substantive difference between what is in the ext4
> > patch queue and your v3 patch. All I did was this:
>
> Sorry I didn't look good at diff of two patches, my mistake.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index d73f1d9..01c5088 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -4100,14 +4100,14 @@ no_journal:
> > if (err) {
> > ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to reserve %llu clusters for "
> > "reserved pool", ext4_calculate_resv_clusters(sb));
> > - goto failed_mount4a;
> > + goto failed_mount5;
> > }
> >
> > err = ext4_setup_system_zone(sb);
> > if (err) {
> > ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to initialize system "
> > "zone (%d)", err);
> > - goto failed_mount4a;
> > + goto failed_mount5;
> > }
> >
> > err = ext4_register_li_request(sb, first_not_zeroed);
> > @@ -4184,7 +4184,7 @@ failed_mount7:
> > ext4_unregister_li_request(sb);
> > failed_mount6:
> > ext4_release_system_zone(sb);
> > -failed_mount4a:
> > +failed_mount5:
> > dput(sb->s_root);
> > sb->s_root = NULL;
> > failed_mount4:
> >
> >
> > Did you actually test your v3 patch on top of the dev branch? Or did
> > you just note that the patch in the ext4 patch queue was different,
> > and assumed it was the v2 version of your patch?
>
> Yes, I actually test v3 patch, but not on the top of dev branch,
> instead the dev branch was on the top of v3 patch.
> (but it changes nothing), with "-O bigalloc" and "-o block_validity"
>
> Also today I recheck this using kvm/qemu, with v3 patch on the top of
> ext4 dev branch, and still nothing, here is last commits:
> 62f5f55 ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors
> eb3e7ab ext4: fix partial cluster handling for bigalloc file systems
> 97d3979 ext4: delete path dealloc code in ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents
>
> The only difference between your tests and my, is that you have i386,
> while i have x86_64. But I really doubt that this is significantly.
I was wrong, I've just tested on i386, and got the same errors as you.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > - Ted
>
>
>
> --
> Respectfully
> Azat Khuzhin
--
Respectfully
Azat Khuzhin
--
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
