On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:50:48PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/27/12 3:40 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > xfs_swap_extents_check_format() contains checks to make sure that > > original and the temporary files during defrag are compatible; > > Gabriel VLASIU ran into a case where xfs_fsr returned EINVAL > > because the tests found the btree root to be of size 120, > > while the fork offset was only 104; IOW, they overlapped. > > > > However, this is just due to an error in the > > xfs_swap_extents_check_format() tests, because it is checking > > the in-memory btree root size against the on-disk fork offset. > > We should be checking the on-disk sizes in both cases. > > > > This patch adds a new macro to calculate this size, and uses > > it in the tests. > > > > With this change, the filesystem image provided by Gabriel > > allows for proper file degragmentation. > > Hm, as usually happens right after finalizing this I stumbled > on something else. xfs_iroot_realloc() does essentially the same > test, but uses a funky macro to resolve the incore/ondisk size > difference: > > ASSERT(ifp->if_broot_bytes <= > XFS_IFORK_SIZE(ip, whichfork) + XFS_BROOT_SIZE_ADJ); > > so dfrag.c could be fixed up the same way, I suppose, using > XFS_BROOT_SIZE_ADJ if desired (though I have no real love for that > undocumented macro!) I much prefer the addition of a XFS_BMAP_BMDR_SPACE() macro. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to convert those uses of XFS_BROOT_SIZE_ADJ to use your new macro, and get rid of the XFS_BROOT_SIZE_ADJ grot altogether? Anyway, consider your patch: Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
