On Feb 18, 2008  19:36 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> One minor correction --- the clusterfs e2fsprogs extents code checks
> to see if the ee_leaf_hi field is non-zero, and complains if so.
> However, it ignores the ee_start_hi field for interior (non-leaf)
> nodes in the extent tree, and a number of tests do have non-zero
> ee_start_hi fields which cause my version of e2fsprogs to (rightly)
> complain.
> If you fix this, a whole bunch of tests will fail as a result, and not
> exercise the code paths that the tests were apparently trying to
> exercise.  Which is what is causing me a bit of worry and wonder about
> how those test cases were originally generated....

The original CFS extents kernel patch had a bug where the _hi fields
were not initialized correctly to zero.  The CFS exents e2fsck
patches would clear the _hi fields in the extents and index blocks,
but I disabled that in the upstream patch submission because it will
be incorrect for 48-bit filesystems.

That's the "high_bits_ok" check in e2fsck_ext_block_verify() for error
PR_1_EXTENT_HI, that only allows the high bits when there are > 2^32
blocks in the filesystem.  It's possible I made a mistake when I added
that part of the patch, but the regression tests still passed.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

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

Reply via email to