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:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:36:59 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
Cc:     Sun Ke <sunke32@huawei.com>, fstests@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ext4: resize fs after resize_inode without e2fsck
Message-ID: <YtrSK+qUm9+xRI7L@mit.edu>
References: <20220713092859.3881376-1-sunke32@huawei.com>
 <20220713092859.3881376-2-sunke32@huawei.com>
 <20220714154607.qq6cqgvncxhsn66w@zlang-mailbox>
 <YtCSAjiMc9RElnHu@mit.edu>
 <20220715180815.gegmapvruor6vin3@zlang-mailbox>
 <b424fd69-aeb4-f749-d09b-5d824454dd94@huawei.com>
 <YtqPXcFbbrFBr1om@mit.edu>
 <20220722151114.c4w7s6v6fu5hphf5@zlang-mailbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220722151114.c4w7s6v6fu5hphf5@zlang-mailbox>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 11:11:14PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > This resets the s_reserved_gdt_blocks field back to zero, so the fsck
> > doesn't fail.  Which is fine, because the point of the test is to see
> > whether the kernel dereferences a NULL pointer or not.
> 
> Or maybe just replace _reuqire_scratch with _require_scratch_nocheck, if we
> corrupt the fs on SCRATCH_DEV intentionally?

Agreed, that would be a better solution.

					- Ted