From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: How were some of the lustre e2fsprogs test cases generated? Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:36:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20080219003644.GQ25098@mit.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:51647 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775AbYBSAgq (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:36:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:06:58PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > The clusterfs e2fsprogs code doesn't notice this, because it apparently > ignores ee_start_hi field entirely. One minor correction --- the clusterfs e2fsprogs extents code checks to see if the ee_leaf_hi field is non-zero, and complains if so. However, it ignores the ee_start_hi field for interior (non-leaf) nodes in the extent tree, and a number of tests do have non-zero ee_start_hi fields which cause my version of e2fsprogs to (rightly) complain. If you fix this, a whole bunch of tests will fail as a result, and not exercise the code paths that the tests were apparently trying to exercise. Which is what is causing me a bit of worry and wonder about how those test cases were originally generated.... Regards, - Ted