On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:04:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > > The xfsctl man page says that an extent size should be settable any time > > on a directory, so why would this fail? Looking at the kernel sources, > > I see a number of possible cases where EINVAL is returned: > > And no special casing for directories at all.. I was not sure if di_nextents is valid (tracks the extents number, and hence can be non-zero for a directory), I'll take this as a confirmation. > > So to me this reads as if the di_nextents check can also fail for a > > directory which has extents, contradicting the man page. Which one needs > > to be updated? > > > > The question arises to if the extent size also applies, then, to > > allocating extents for a directory - instead of just being inherited for > > files (the man page says no). > > We're not using the extent size hint on the directory itself. Aha, this is good to know. > So to > me it seems we just not check for already allocated blocks if we're > setting the extent size on a directory, but instead maybe make sure > the directory. Not sure I parse that - do you mean we should either check for a directory, or for zero extent count? > What's also a little odd is that we allow setting > the extent size on a directory even if the extent size inherit bit is > not set, which doesn't make much sense to me. Since the hint it is never used for directories, agreed it doesn't make sense. Should this be an error (since I don't think warnings can be reported). > Do you want to prepare a patch to remove the check for directories? > At testcase for xfstests that ensures this works also would be highly > useful.. I'll try to. Is the tree against which I should sent the kernel patch at git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs? thanks, iustin _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
