Re: [PATCH][7/28] e2fsprogs-extents.patch

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:56:53AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> So this trips up on things like sockets, fifos, and block & char nodes.
> 
> Also this is unhappy:
> 
> > @@ -137,7 +141,7 @@ int e2fsck_pass1_check_device_inode(ext2
> >  	 * If the index flag is set, then this is a bogus
> >  	 * device/fifo/socket
> >  	 */
> > -	if (inode->i_flags & EXT2_INDEX_FL)
> > +	if (inode->i_flags & (EXT2_INDEX_FL | EXT4_EXTENTS_FL))
> >  		return 0;
> 
> Do we really care if these have the extents flag set?  IOW should we
> make sure the kernel doesn't set the flag, or should we make e2fsck not
> care...

<Sigh>

I think we need to get kernel patches into mainline ASAP not to set
the EXTENTS_FL --- be conservative in what you send --- and at least
for now, e2fsck needs to accept (and not complain or core dump) if
EXTENTS_FL is set for files where ext2fs_inode_has_valid_blocks()
returns false --- be liberal in what you accept.  

Eventually, after the kernel patches hit mainline, we could change
e2fsck to automatically fix all of these in preen mode, just for
cleanliness sake.

						- Ted