From: a3at.mail@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:53:02 +0400 Message-ID: <20140317175302.GD19885@azat> References: <20140315214029.GA18873@thunk.org> <20140316023841.GA902@thunk.org> <20140316161637.GA19885@azat> <20140316184634.GA14162@thunk.org> <20140316205659.GC19885@azat> <20140317020029.GC14162@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "open list:EXT4 FILE SYSTEM" To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:48534 "EHLO mail-lb0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754891AbaCQRxZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:53:25 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id s7so3987997lbd.9 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 08:19:47PM +0400, Azat Khuzhin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:00 AM, wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0400, a3at.mail@gmail.com wrote: > >> After I tested ext4 dev branch (eb3e7abb161ad5), without any xfs-tests complaints, > >> I understand what goes wrong, you have not last version of > >> this patch, the latest is v3. > >> (Actually you have description from last patch, but not the latest changes.) > > > > What I did was to take your v3 version of the patch, and then since > > that patch removed the label failed_mount5, I changed instances of > > failed_mount4a to failed_mount5, just for aesthetic reasons. > > > > So there is no substantive difference between what is in the ext4 > > patch queue and your v3 patch. All I did was this: > > Sorry I didn't look good at diff of two patches, my mistake. > > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > > index d73f1d9..01c5088 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > > @@ -4100,14 +4100,14 @@ no_journal: > > if (err) { > > ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to reserve %llu clusters for " > > "reserved pool", ext4_calculate_resv_clusters(sb)); > > - goto failed_mount4a; > > + goto failed_mount5; > > } > > > > err = ext4_setup_system_zone(sb); > > if (err) { > > ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to initialize system " > > "zone (%d)", err); > > - goto failed_mount4a; > > + goto failed_mount5; > > } > > > > err = ext4_register_li_request(sb, first_not_zeroed); > > @@ -4184,7 +4184,7 @@ failed_mount7: > > ext4_unregister_li_request(sb); > > failed_mount6: > > ext4_release_system_zone(sb); > > -failed_mount4a: > > +failed_mount5: > > dput(sb->s_root); > > sb->s_root = NULL; > > failed_mount4: > > > > > > Did you actually test your v3 patch on top of the dev branch? Or did > > you just note that the patch in the ext4 patch queue was different, > > and assumed it was the v2 version of your patch? > > Yes, I actually test v3 patch, but not on the top of dev branch, > instead the dev branch was on the top of v3 patch. > (but it changes nothing), with "-O bigalloc" and "-o block_validity" > > Also today I recheck this using kvm/qemu, with v3 patch on the top of > ext4 dev branch, and still nothing, here is last commits: > 62f5f55 ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors > eb3e7ab ext4: fix partial cluster handling for bigalloc file systems > 97d3979 ext4: delete path dealloc code in ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents > > The only difference between your tests and my, is that you have i386, > while i have x86_64. But I really doubt that this is significantly. I was wrong, I've just tested on i386, and got the same errors as you. > > > > > Regards, > > > > - Ted > > > > -- > Respectfully > Azat Khuzhin -- Respectfully Azat Khuzhin