On Nov 12, 2007 09:58 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:52:45AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Did you test this patch before submitting it? > > > > Argh, stupid me. I've just tested that I didn't break anything for normal > > block size and thought that I cannot make mistake in such a simple thing > > ;). > > Could I ask you to perhaps include some 64k blocksize test cases that > would exercise the new codepaths? One thing I had done to verify that 64kB rec_len was broken was to always create lost+found with at least 2 disk blocks, since the second block in lost+found will not have any dirents in it and will tickle this bug. Patch attached. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Software Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.