From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: fix ENOSPC corruption case Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:58:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20090520205829.GK24836@mit.edu> References: <4A11D375.30709@redhat.com> <20090520113748.GC24836@mit.edu> <4A142851.6000807@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:45037 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750946AbZETU6f (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2009 16:58:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A142851.6000807@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:57:05AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > For F11 I will likely put in the later 2 patches, to fix up the minimum > size reporting and then enforce that as the minimum size, so we > shouldn't(tm) get into these error paths. Seems like the safer > last-minute change. The first half of this patch I think is quite safe, and after stepping through tst_etent, I'm pretty sure the second half of this patch would be pretty easy to validate. We probably don't want to enter any of these error paths for now, though, since it's not clear we've fied all of them, particularly in the split_node code. - Ted