2010-10-21 03:51:53

by ck ya

Subject: fsck get error with the file which is > 2TB in 4k block file system

I compiled the latest e2fsprogs, and do fsck with -nvf on my ext4 file system.
It showed
Inode 18, i_blocks is 17179870744, should be 17179870744. Fix? no
The i_blocks is the same.

I found ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() has problem. The function check
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE with "s_feature_compat". It should
be "s_feature_ro_compat".

Thanks.

diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
index a48b696..d67c6ec 100644
--- a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
+++ b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_data_blocks2(ext2_filsys fs,
struct ext2_inode *inode)
{
return (inode->i_blocks |
- ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
+ ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
(__u64) inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0)) -
(inode->i_file_acl ? fs->blocksize >> 9 : 0);
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_i_blocks(ext2_filsys fs,
struct ext2_inode *inode)
{
return (inode->i_blocks |
- ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
+ ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
(__u64)inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0));
}

2010-10-21 15:06:16

by Eric Sandeen

Subject: Re: fsck get error with the file which is > 2TB in 4k block file system

ck ya wrote:
> I compiled the latest e2fsprogs, and do fsck with -nvf on my ext4 file system.
> It showed
> Inode 18, i_blocks is 17179870744, should be 17179870744. Fix? no
> The i_blocks is the same.
>
> I found ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() has problem. The function check
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE with "s_feature_compat". It should
> be "s_feature_ro_compat".

Seems right to me, if you add [PATCH] to the subject emails like
these, and add:

Signed-off-by: ck ya <[email protected]>
---

after the patch,

it'd be ideal.

Thanks,
-Eric

> Thanks.
>
> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
> index a48b696..d67c6ec 100644
> --- a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_data_blocks2(ext2_filsys fs,
> struct ext2_inode *inode)
> {
> return (inode->i_blocks |
> - ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
> + ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
> (__u64) inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0)) -
> (inode->i_file_acl ? fs->blocksize >> 9 : 0);
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_i_blocks(ext2_filsys fs,
> struct ext2_inode *inode)
> {
> return (inode->i_blocks |
> - ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
> + ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
> (__u64)inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0));
> }
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

2010-10-21 17:04:44

by Justin Maggard

Subject: Re: fsck get error with the file which is > 2TB in 4k block file system

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote:
> ck ya wrote:
>> I compiled the latest e2fsprogs, and do fsck with -nvf on my ext4 file system.
>> It showed
>> Inode 18, i_blocks is 17179870744, should be 17179870744. Fix? no
>> The i_blocks is the same.
>>
>> I found ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() has problem. ?The function check
>> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE with "s_feature_compat". ?It should
>> be "s_feature_ro_compat".
>
> Seems right to me, if you add [PATCH] to the subject emails like
> these, and add:
>
> Signed-off-by: ck ya <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> after the patch,
>
> it'd be ideal.
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>> index a48b696..d67c6ec 100644
>> --- a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_data_blocks2(ext2_filsys fs,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct ext2_inode *inode)
>> ?{
>> ? ? ? ? return (inode->i_blocks |
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(__u64) inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0)) -
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (inode->i_file_acl ? fs->blocksize >> 9 : 0);
>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_i_blocks(ext2_filsys fs,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct ext2_inode *inode)
>> ?{
>> ? ? ? ? return (inode->i_blocks |
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(__u64)inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0));
>> ?}

Hmm, looks strikingly similar to what I posted nearly two months ago. :)

-Justin

2010-10-21 17:15:27

by Eric Sandeen

Subject: Re: fsck get error with the file which is > 2TB in 4k block file system

Justin Maggard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ck ya wrote:
>>> I compiled the latest e2fsprogs, and do fsck with -nvf on my ext4 file system.
>>> It showed
>>> Inode 18, i_blocks is 17179870744, should be 17179870744. Fix? no
>>> The i_blocks is the same.
>>>
>>> I found ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() has problem. The function check
>>> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE with "s_feature_compat". It should
>>> be "s_feature_ro_compat".
>> Seems right to me, if you add [PATCH] to the subject emails like
>> these, and add:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: ck ya <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> after the patch,
>>
>> it'd be ideal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Eric
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>>> index a48b696..d67c6ec 100644
>>> --- a/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>>> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/blknum.c
>>> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_data_blocks2(ext2_filsys fs,
>>> struct ext2_inode *inode)
>>> {
>>> return (inode->i_blocks |
>>> - ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
>>> + ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
>>> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
>>> (__u64) inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0)) -
>>> (inode->i_file_acl ? fs->blocksize >> 9 : 0);
>>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ blk64_t ext2fs_inode_i_blocks(ext2_filsys fs,
>>> struct ext2_inode *inode)
>>> {
>>> return (inode->i_blocks |
>>> - ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat &
>>> + ((fs->super->s_feature_ro_incompat &
>>> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_HUGE_FILE) ?
>>> (__u64)inode->osd2.linux2.l_i_blocks_hi << 32 : 0));
>>> }
>
> Hmm, looks strikingly similar to what I posted nearly two months ago. :)

Whoops, glad you remembered it :)

Ted, I guess that's a ping to merge the fix for that bug ;)

-Eric

> -Justin
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html