From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: symlink has wrong sd_blocks count Date: 18 Feb 2003 07:56:26 -0500 Message-ID: <1045572986.13746.3.camel@tiny.suse.com> References: <3E5210A5.1030108@dsvr.net> <20030218144243.A6891@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030218144243.A6891@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Oleg Drokin Cc: Nick Burrett , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 06:42, Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:53:25AM +0000, Nick Burrett wrote: > > > I'm running a stock 2.4.20 kernel with the reiserfs quota patches applied. > > Simply creating a symlink and then running reiserfsck shows errors like > > this: > > /foofile 2 4 has wrong sd_blocks 8, has to be 1 > > I've reproduced this 100% on 100 filesystems on two servers. > > Aha, I see. > Ignore this message for now for directories and symlinks. > This is because when reiserfs calculates number of blocks file would use, > in case of no quota, reiserfs code does this and can do this precisely > (up to 512 bytes), but with quota patches applied, quota code takes > account of blocks used. And it round everything up to blocksize, hence > the difference. And reiserfsck uses only 1st variant of the code. > I am not yet sure on how to deal with the issue. > Just ignore this message for now. The quota code can have special checks for symlinks, but the sd_block accounting is somewhat complex, and I've been hesitant to make it even more so with the symlink checks. -chris