Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 updates for 3.9

[Zheng Liu]

Hi Ted,

On 02/28/2013 02:49 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Markus, Dave, can you confirm that this fixes your problem?
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> (Sigh, this is a real brown paper bug; I'm embarassed I missed this in
> my code review.)

Sorry, I don't have a big disk in my hand now.  So I could reproduce it.
 But the patch looks good.  Thanks for fixing it.

Regards,
						- Zheng

> 
> 						- Ted
> 
> From f47f0d11096ca5d9e1965d8a9f266aa13fe2b73b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:47:52 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix extent status tree regression for file systems >
>  512GB
> 
> This fixes a regression introduced by commit f7fec032aa782.  The
> problem was that the extents status flags caused us to mask out block
> numbers smaller than 2**28 blocks.  Since we didn't test with file
> systems smaller than 512GB, we didn't notice this during the
> development cycle.
> 
> A typical failure looks like this:
> 
> EXT4-fs error (device sdb1): htree_dirblock_to_tree:919: inode #172235804: block
> 152052301: comm ls: bad entry in directory: rec_len is smaller than minimal -
> offset=0(0), inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> 
> ... where 'debugfs -R "stat <172235804>" /dev/sdb1' reports that the
> inode has block number 688923213.  When viewed in hex, block number
> 152052301 (from the syslog) is 0x910224D, while block number 688923213
> is 0x2910224D.  Note the missing "0x20000000" in the block number.
> 
> Reported-by: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/extents_status.h | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.h b/fs/ext4/extents_status.h
> index cf83e77..c795ff6 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.h
> @@ -20,10 +20,10 @@
>  #define es_debug(fmt, ...)	no_printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #endif
>  
> -#define EXTENT_STATUS_WRITTEN	0x80000000	/* written extent */
> -#define EXTENT_STATUS_UNWRITTEN	0x40000000	/* unwritten extent */
> -#define EXTENT_STATUS_DELAYED	0x20000000	/* delayed extent */
> -#define EXTENT_STATUS_HOLE	0x10000000	/* hole */
> +#define EXTENT_STATUS_WRITTEN	(((unsigned long long) 1) << 63)
> +#define EXTENT_STATUS_UNWRITTEN	(((unsigned long long) 1) << 62)
> +#define EXTENT_STATUS_DELAYED	(((unsigned long long) 1) << 61)
> +#define EXTENT_STATUS_HOLE	(((unsigned long long) 1) << 60)
>  
>  #define EXTENT_STATUS_FLAGS	(EXTENT_STATUS_WRITTEN | \
>  				 EXTENT_STATUS_UNWRITTEN | \
> @@ -58,22 +58,22 @@ extern int ext4_es_lookup_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
>  
>  static inline int ext4_es_is_written(struct extent_status *es)
>  {
> -	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_WRITTEN);
> +	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_WRITTEN) != 0;
>  }
>  
>  static inline int ext4_es_is_unwritten(struct extent_status *es)
>  {
> -	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_UNWRITTEN);
> +	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_UNWRITTEN) != 0;
>  }
>  
>  static inline int ext4_es_is_delayed(struct extent_status *es)
>  {
> -	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_DELAYED);
> +	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_DELAYED) != 0;
>  }
>  
>  static inline int ext4_es_is_hole(struct extent_status *es)
>  {
> -	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_HOLE);
> +	return (es->es_pblk & EXTENT_STATUS_HOLE) != 0;
>  }
>  
>  static inline ext4_fsblk_t ext4_es_status(struct extent_status *es)
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/