On 2017/1/5 6:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 01/04, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2016/12/31 2:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Otherwise we can remain wrong curseg->next_blkoff, resulting in fsck failure.
>>
>> Could you explain more about this case?
>
> I remember that I hit an fsck failure when I was testing f2fs with an smr drive.
> I didn't dig into the error, but the fact is that our roll-forward recovery
> doesn't update current segment information at every time, but allocate a new
> section at the end of the work like below.
> I just enabled it for the LFS mode in order to avoid that failure.
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 3 ---
>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index be9e4d244d75..4e5ffe1d97e4 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1428,9 +1428,6 @@ void allocate_new_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>> unsigned int old_segno;
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> - if (test_opt(sbi, LFS))
>>> - return;
>>> -
>>> for (i = CURSEG_HOT_DATA; i <= CURSEG_COLD_DATA; i++) {
>>> curseg = CURSEG_I(sbi, i);
>>> old_segno = curseg->segno;
>>>
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
