On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 19:44, Mark Syms wrote:
>
> So, actually the original comparison in the assert (dodgy scaling factor not
> withstanding) was probably correct in that we don't ever want to remove all
> blocks from the inode as one of them is used for the inode itself? Or do we
> still
So, actually the original comparison in the assert (dodgy scaling factor not
withstanding) was probably correct in that we don't ever want to remove all
blocks from the inode as one of them is used for the inode itself? Or do we
still think it should allow for change to be the negative of
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 18:14, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 15:35:05 GMT Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:43, Mark Syms wrote:
> > > We don't yet know how the assert got triggered as we've only seen it once
> > > and in the original form it looks like it
Hi,
On 09/01/2019 17:14, Tim Smith wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 15:35:05 GMT Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:43, Mark Syms wrote:
We don't yet know how the assert got triggered as we've only seen it once
and in the original form it looks like it would be very hard
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 15:35:05 GMT Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:43, Mark Syms wrote:
> > We don't yet know how the assert got triggered as we've only seen it once
> > and in the original form it looks like it would be very hard to trigger in
> > any normal case
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:43, Mark Syms wrote:
> We don't yet know how the assert got triggered as we've only seen it once
> and in the original form it looks like it would be very hard to trigger in
> any normal case (given that in default usage i_blocks should be at least 8
> times what any
We don't yet know how the assert got triggered as we've only seen it once and
in the original form it looks like it would be very hard to trigger in any
normal case (given that in default usage i_blocks should be at least 8 times
what any putative value for change could be). So, for the assert
Mark and Tim,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 13:05, Tim Smith wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 13:32:20 GMT Mark Syms wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We've seen this in testing with 4.19.
> >
> > Full trace is at the bottom.
> >
> > Looking at the code though it looks like it will assert if the value of
> >
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 13:32:20 GMT Mark Syms wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've seen this in testing with 4.19.
>
> Full trace is at the bottom.
>
> Looking at the code though it looks like it will assert if the value of
> change is equal to the number of blocks currently allocated to the inode.
> Is
