From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: allocate inode table wholly within group Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:29:17 -0500 Message-ID: <524AF85D.4040100@redhat.com> References: <51D3269B.5080608@redhat.com> <51DB2EB9.4010903@redhat.com> <20131001015746.GF5845@thunk.org> <524AE9A5.4010309@redhat.com> <524AEBAE.1080208@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7069 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082Ab3JAQ3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:29:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <524AEBAE.1080208@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/1/13 10:35 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/1/13 10:26 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/30/13 8:57 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 04:27:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> >>>> The actual problem seems to be that the test does successive "-M" minimal resizes, and eventually we resize into the middle of an inode table, leaving the end of the table beyond the fs. >>>> >>>> Point "resize2fs -M" at the attached image once or twice w/ fscks in between and you should see it. >>> >>> I've been going through my patch backlog, so I finally had a chance to >>> take a very close look at your test image. I now understand why >>> things are failing. >>> >>> 1) The test image (which you said was generated on a ppc e2fsprogs?) >>> was doing something very weird as far as the location of the >>> allocation bitmaps and inode table: >> >> Yes, this was just during a fedora build, during the "make check" phase. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980519 >> >> No idea why things should be coming out differently, that's a bit >> alarming in and of itself. >> >> (Fedora isn't carrying any interesting patches to speak of). > > But I am doing this: > > %check > +# XXX ERS Hack for now; this bug has existed for a while, > +# i.e. it is not a regression in this release, but there > +# is no fix yet, and we need to get this package building. > +# See Bug 987133 - resize2fs tests failing on ppc, s390 > +rm -rf tests/r_1024_small_bg* > +rm -rf tests/r_64bit_big_expand* > +rm -rf tests/r_bigalloc_big_expand* > +rm -rf tests/r_ext4_big_expand* > make check > > I'll retest w/ your patches, thanks. Now all are passing on ppc64, last 3 are still failing on s390. :( -Eric