---- 在 星期四, 2019-11-07 17:21:17 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> 撰写 ---- > On Thu 07-11-19 10:54:43, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > ---- 在 星期三, 2019-11-06 23:42:36 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> 撰写 ---- > > > On Mon 04-11-19 19:40:33, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > Call common helper ext2_group_last_block_no() to > > > > calculate group last block number. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks for the patch! I've applied it (as well as 1/5) and added attached > > > simplification on top. > > > > > > > In ext2_try_to_allocate() > > > > + if (my_rsv->_rsv_end < group_last_block) > > + end = my_rsv->_rsv_end - group_first_block + 1; > > + if (grp_goal < start || grp_goal > end) > > > > Based on original code, shouldn't it be if (grp_goal < start || grp_goal > > >=end) ? > > Hum, that's a good point. The original code actually had an off-by-one bug > because 'end' is really the last block that can be used so grp_goal == end > still makes sense. And my cleanup fixed it. Now looking at the code in > ext2_try_to_allocate() we also have a similar bug in the loop allocating > blocks. There we can also go upto 'end' inclusive. Added a patch to fix > that. Thanks for pointing me to this! > Doesn't it depend on what starting number for grp_block inside block group? if it starts from 0, is the end number block still available for allocation? Thanks, Chengguang
