From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH][7/28] e2fsprogs-extents.patch Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:53:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20080218195332.GK25098@mit.edu> References: <20080202075943.GB23836@webber.adilger.int> <20080202082559.GG31694@webber.adilger.int> <20080202082701.GH31694@webber.adilger.int> <47B9C6E5.2010304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:45751 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753026AbYBRTxo (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:53:44 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47B9C6E5.2010304@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:56:53AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > So this trips up on things like sockets, fifos, and block & char nodes. > > Also this is unhappy: > > > @@ -137,7 +141,7 @@ int e2fsck_pass1_check_device_inode(ext2 > > * If the index flag is set, then this is a bogus > > * device/fifo/socket > > */ > > - if (inode->i_flags & EXT2_INDEX_FL) > > + if (inode->i_flags & (EXT2_INDEX_FL | EXT4_EXTENTS_FL)) > > return 0; > > Do we really care if these have the extents flag set? IOW should we > make sure the kernel doesn't set the flag, or should we make e2fsck not > care... I think we need to get kernel patches into mainline ASAP not to set the EXTENTS_FL --- be conservative in what you send --- and at least for now, e2fsck needs to accept (and not complain or core dump) if EXTENTS_FL is set for files where ext2fs_inode_has_valid_blocks() returns false --- be liberal in what you accept. Eventually, after the kernel patches hit mainline, we could change e2fsck to automatically fix all of these in preen mode, just for cleanliness sake. - Ted