Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:32:58 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: update s_overhead_clusters in the superblock
 during an on-line resize
Message-ID: <YsbumgHCsinwGuCx@mit.edu>
References: <20220629040026.112371-1-tytso@mit.edu>
 <2F240021-C24A-4F86-ACDA-2FF944F9FE6F@dilger.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2F240021-C24A-4F86-ACDA-2FF944F9FE6F@dilger.ca>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 02:47:43PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:00 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > When doing an online resize, the on-disk superblock on-disk wasn't
> > updated.  This means that when the file system is unmounted and
> > remounted, and the on-disk overhead value is non-zero, this would
> > result in the results of statfs(2) to be incorrect.
> > 
> > This was partially fixed by Commits 10b01ee92df5 ("ext4: fix overhead
> > calculation to account for the reserved gdt blocks"), 85d825dbf489
> > ("ext4: force overhead calculation if the s_overhead_cluster makes no
> > sense"), and eb7054212eac ("ext4: update the cached overhead value in
> > the superblock").
> 
> Would these be better referenced by Fixes: labels?

This commit doesn't actually _fix_ the above-mentioned commits.  They
just didn't fix the bug which is addressed by this one.

Cheers,

						- Ted