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
