On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:10:56 -0600 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2007 16:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > err = ext4_reserve_inode_write(handle, inode, &iloc);
> > > + if (EXT4_I(inode)->i_extra_isize <
> > > + EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_want_extra_isize &&
> > > + !(EXT4_I(inode)->i_state & EXT4_STATE_NO_EXPAND)) {
> > > + /* We need extra buffer credits since we may write into EA block
> > > + * with this same handle */
> > > + if ((jbd2_journal_extend(handle,
> > > + EXT4_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS(inode->i_sb))) == 0) {
> > > + ret = ext4_expand_extra_isize(inode,
> > > + EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_want_extra_isize,
> > > + iloc, handle);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + EXT4_I(inode)->i_state |= EXT4_STATE_NO_EXPAND;
> > > + if (!expand_message) {
> > > + ext4_warning(inode->i_sb, __FUNCTION__,
> > > + "Unable to expand inode %lu. Delete"
> > > + " some EAs or run e2fsck.",
> > > + inode->i_ino);
> > > + expand_message = 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > Maybe that message should come out once per mount rather than once per boot
> > (or once per modprobe)?
>
> Probably true.
>
> > What are the consequences of a jbd2_journal_extend() failure in here?
>
> Not fatal, just like every user of i_extra_isize. If the inode isn't a
> large inode, or it can't be expanded then there will be a minor loss of
> functionality on that inode. If the i_extra_isize is critical, then
> the sysadmin will have run e2fsck to force s_min_extra_isize large enough.
>
> Note that this is only applicable for filesystems which are upgraded. For
> new inodes (i.e. all inodes that exist in the filesystem if it was always
> run on a kernel with the currently understood extra fields) then this will
> never be invoked (until such a time new extra fields are added).
I'd suggest that we get a comment in the code explaining this: this
unchecked error does rather stand out.
> > > + if (EXT4_I(inode)->i_file_acl) {
> > > + bh = sb_bread(inode->i_sb, EXT4_I(inode)->i_file_acl);
> > > + error = -EIO;
> > > + if (!bh)
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > + if (ext4_xattr_check_block(bh)) {
> > > + ext4_error(inode->i_sb, __FUNCTION__,
> > > + "inode %lu: bad block %llu", inode->i_ino,
> > > + EXT4_I(inode)->i_file_acl);
> > > + error = -EIO;
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > + }
> > > + base = BHDR(bh);
> > > + first = BFIRST(bh);
> > > + end = bh->b_data + bh->b_size;
> > > + min_offs = end - base;
> > > + free = ext4_xattr_free_space(first, &min_offs, base,
> > > + &total_blk);
> > > + if (free < new_extra_isize) {
> > > + if (!tried_min_extra_isize && s_min_extra_isize) {
> > > + tried_min_extra_isize++;
> > > + new_extra_isize = s_min_extra_isize;
> >
> > Aren't we missing a brelse(bh) here?
>
> Seems likely, yes.
OK - could we get a positive ack from someone indicating that this will get
looked at? Because I am about to forget about it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
