Looks good, Steve.
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 17:01 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote: > >From da57639e65b148bb4d2a3c6a9d98623b8ad18b04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Bob Peterson <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:21:06 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH 10/44] fsck.gfs2: Keep di_nlink in sync when adding links for > lost+found > > When adding a ".." entry to a directory newly linked to lost+found > fsck.gfs2 needs to update its di_nlink value to account for the new > link. If not, it can "correct" the di_nlink value to the wrong > value and not find the error until a second fsck.gfs2 is done. > This only happens in the rare case where there is no pre-existing > ".." entry that may be reused to re-link to lost+found. > > rhbz#675723 > --- > gfs2/fsck/lost_n_found.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gfs2/fsck/lost_n_found.c b/gfs2/fsck/lost_n_found.c > index 32f3c5c..b6f02b9 100644 > --- a/gfs2/fsck/lost_n_found.c > +++ b/gfs2/fsck/lost_n_found.c > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ int add_inode_to_lf(struct gfs2_inode *ip){ > dip = fsck_load_inode(sdp, di->dotdot_parent); > if (dip->i_di.di_nlink > 0) { > dip->i_di.di_nlink--; > + set_di_nlink(dip); /* keep inode tree in sync */ > log_debug(_("Decrementing its links to %d\n"), > dip->i_di.di_nlink); > bmodified(dip->i_bh); > @@ -128,6 +129,7 @@ int add_inode_to_lf(struct gfs2_inode *ip){ > "Changing it to 0.\n"), > dip->i_di.di_nlink); > dip->i_di.di_nlink = 0; > + set_di_nlink(dip); /* keep inode tree in sync */ > bmodified(dip->i_bh); > } > fsck_inode_put(&dip);
