On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:53:54PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> When fixing up block group bitmaps on the new fs, don't try to mark
> unallocated group metadata blocks; these will be allocated (and
> marked) later.
The commit description doesn't match the diff. It looks like what you
are doing is adding a check in case ext2fs_{block,inode}_bitmap_loc is
zero (which is not bad, but when can that happen; and if it's
something that _can_ happen, should we be triggering an assert
failure), and using ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap_range2() instead of a for
loop.
Is there a back story to this patch?
Thanks,
- Ted
> diff --git a/resize/resize2fs.c b/resize/resize2fs.c
> index 94c0643..a760593 100644
> --- a/resize/resize2fs.c
> +++ b/resize/resize2fs.c
> @@ -242,7 +242,6 @@ static void fix_uninit_block_bitmaps(ext2_filsys fs)
> {
> blk64_t blk, lblk;
> dgrp_t g;
> - int i;
>
> if (!ext2fs_has_group_desc_csum(fs))
> return;
> @@ -257,14 +256,16 @@ static void fix_uninit_block_bitmaps(ext2_filsys fs)
> lblk - blk + 1);
>
> ext2fs_reserve_super_and_bgd(fs, g, fs->block_map);
> - ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map,
> - ext2fs_block_bitmap_loc(fs, g));
> - ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map,
> - ext2fs_inode_bitmap_loc(fs, g));
> - for (i = 0, blk = ext2fs_inode_table_loc(fs, g);
> - i < (unsigned int) fs->inode_blocks_per_group;
> - i++, blk++)
> + blk = ext2fs_block_bitmap_loc(fs, g);
> + if (blk)
> + ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map, blk);
> + blk = ext2fs_inode_bitmap_loc(fs, g);
> + if (blk)
> ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map, blk);
> + blk = ext2fs_inode_table_loc(fs, g);
> + if (blk)
> + ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap_range2(fs->block_map, blk,
> + fs->inode_blocks_per_group);
> }
> }
>
>
--
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
