Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Message-Id: <37689479-8118-4ED1-A98C-4A3E982B4575@dilger.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_081E87A3-528C-409B-A70D-BD282B608196";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: fix to use inode i_blocks correctly
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:37:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20191230151921.GA125106@mit.edu>
Cc:     Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        lixi@ddn.com, dongyangli@ddn.com, Wang Shilong <wshilong@ddn.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
References: <1577705766-20736-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@gmail.com>
 <20191230151921.GA125106@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--Apple-Mail=_081E87A3-528C-409B-A70D-BD282B608196
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

On Dec 30, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:36:06PM +0900, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> blocks_from_inode() did not return wrong inode blocks, and
>> ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() is not taking EXT4_HUGE_FILE_FL into account
>> at all, while the some callers deal it correctly, some not. This patch
>> try to unify to handle it in ext2fs_inode_i_blocks() to return.
>> blocks(based on 512 bytes)
> 
> I don't really want to change the functionality of
> ext2fs_inode_i_blocks().  First of all, it's in a shared library, so
> if there are any binaries which were expecting the old behavior, that
> could get surprising.  Secondly, its name is confusing and so we're
> better off creating a new function ext2fs_get_stat_i_blocks() which
> makes it clear that we function is using units of 512 byte sectors,
> instead of either the file system block size, or the raw i_blocks
> value from the inode.
> 
> Two other things about your patch.  First of all, the filefrag command
> in debugfs was intended to print the number of file system blocks, so
> it was correct as written.  Secondly, please note the blkcnt_t is a
> signed type (because the block iterator functions use negative values
> to indicate various kinds of metadata blocks), while blk64_t is an
> unsigned type.  So using blkcnt_t as a temporary value and returning
> it in a function which has a return type of blk64_t will (righly)
> trigger compiler warnings.
> 
> Here's the patch I've checked into the maint branch of e2fsprogs to
> address the issue you've identified.

No patch is attached?

Cheers, Andreas


--Apple-Mail=_081E87A3-528C-409B-A70D-BD282B608196
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=Kx5e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_081E87A3-528C-409B-A70D-BD282B608196--