From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Initial results of FLEX_BG feature. Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:14:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20070711221425.GH19456@thunk.org> References: <20070710112307.34c2ba5c@rx8> <20070711041213.GH6417@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070711003004.531c9307@naruto> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: "Jose R. Santos" Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:60398 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761750AbXGKWO2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:14:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070711003004.531c9307@naruto> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:30:04AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote: > Right now what I've done is allocate the bitmaps and inode tables at the > beginning of each group of 64 BG. Still need to work on fsck since just > removing the restriction on were the bitmaps and inode table are > located still gives me errors of uninitialized inodes with dtime set. > Seems like fsck still expect inode information to be located at > specific locations within the disk. Can you send me the patch which you were playing with? I might be able to help you with this. It should be pretty straightforward to remove the constraint on the inode table location. It really should only be a check in e2fsck/super.c:check_super_block(), as far as I know. If you're seeing errors of unitialized inodes with dtime set, that sounds like maybe something else is going on. All of e2fsprogs should be referencing the inode table via fs->group_desc[group_num].bg_inode_table. See lib/ext2fs/inode.c, functions ext2fs_open_inode_scan(), get_next_blockgroup(), and ext2fs_read_inode_full(). - Ted