On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 19:02 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Yes even prev-rec_len cannot be beyond fs-blocksize. I do have the
corrupt filesystem image but it is a large one.
This patch certainly works well and corrects the problem
Hi Ted,
Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck while
doing some regression testing:
Entry '4, 0x695a, 0x81ff, 0x0040, 0x8320, 0xa192, 0x0021' in ??? (136554) has
rec_len of 14200, should be 26908.
Both the displayed rec_len and the should be value are bogus. The
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:02:02PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi Ted,
Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck while
doing some regression testing:
Entry '4, 0x695a, 0x81ff, 0x0040, 0x8320, 0xa192, 0x0021' in ??? (136554) has
rec_len of 14200, should be 26908.
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:50 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:02:02PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi Ted,
Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck while
doing some regression testing:
Entry '4, 0x695a, 0x81ff, 0x0040, 0x8320, 0xa192,
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:50 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:02:02PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi Ted,
Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck
while doing some regression
On Jul 09, 2007 14:29 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Yes even prev-rec_len cannot be beyond fs-blocksize.
Really? Even after this:
prev-rec_len += dirent-rec_len;
^^^
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:17:33PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jul 09, 2007 14:29 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Yes even prev-rec_len cannot be beyond fs-blocksize.
Really? Even after this:
prev-rec_len
