From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Protect group inode free counting with group lock. Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:49:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4FB3CC8C.4030502@redhat.com> References: <1337158192-4591-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4FB3AF00.9060704@redhat.com> <4FB3BFC9.20901@tao.ma> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" To: Tao Ma Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2981 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755670Ab2EPPtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2012 11:49:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FB3BFC9.20901@tao.ma> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/16/12 9:55 AM, Tao Ma wrote: > On 05/16/2012 09:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 5/16/12 3:49 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>> From: Tao Ma >>> >>> Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper >>> group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free >>> count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like: >> >> This is only in the ! EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM case I guess? >> That would be worth mentioning in the summary & changelog. > sure, I will add it in v2. >> >> I guess you were testing without that for some reason? > See my comments below. I found it when running xfstests 269. Still not sure how you got a filesystem w/o that feature though, unless I am forgetting something obvious. Isn't it on by default? -Eric