On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:54:42AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Because the RT blocks follow right after.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Aha, I was wondering about that. Does this belong in the previous
patch?
Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
--D
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> index bb2e31e338b8..3c04fee284e2 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> @@ -307,6 +307,10 @@ xfs_growfs_data(
> if (!mutex_trylock(&mp->m_growlock))
> return -EWOULDBLOCK;
>
> + /* we can't grow the data section when an internal RT section exists */
> + if (in->newblocks != mp->m_sb.sb_dblocks && mp->m_sb.sb_rtstart)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /* update imaxpct separately to the physical grow of the filesystem */
> if (in->imaxpct != mp->m_sb.sb_imax_pct) {
> error = xfs_growfs_imaxpct(mp, in->imaxpct);
> --
> 2.45.2
>
>
