From: tytso@mit.edu
To: a3at.mail@gmail.com
Cc: "open list:EXT4 FILE SYSTEM" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:00:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140317020029.GC14162@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140316205659.GC19885@azat>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0400, a3at.mail@gmail.com wrote:
> After I tested ext4 dev branch (eb3e7abb161ad5), without any xfs-tests complaints,
> I understand what goes wrong, you have not last version of
> this patch, the latest is v3.
> (Actually you have description from last patch, but not the latest changes.)
What I did was to take your v3 version of the patch, and then since
that patch removed the label failed_mount5, I changed instances of
failed_mount4a to failed_mount5, just for aesthetic reasons.
So there is no substantive difference between what is in the ext4
patch queue and your v3 patch. All I did was this:
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index d73f1d9..01c5088 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -4100,14 +4100,14 @@ no_journal:
if (err) {
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to reserve %llu clusters for "
"reserved pool", ext4_calculate_resv_clusters(sb));
- goto failed_mount4a;
+ goto failed_mount5;
}
err = ext4_setup_system_zone(sb);
if (err) {
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to initialize system "
"zone (%d)", err);
- goto failed_mount4a;
+ goto failed_mount5;
}
err = ext4_register_li_request(sb, first_not_zeroed);
@@ -4184,7 +4184,7 @@ failed_mount7:
ext4_unregister_li_request(sb);
failed_mount6:
ext4_release_system_zone(sb);
-failed_mount4a:
+failed_mount5:
dput(sb->s_root);
sb->s_root = NULL;
failed_mount4:
Did you actually test your v3 patch on top of the dev branch? Or did
you just note that the patch in the ext4 patch queue was different,
and assumed it was the v2 version of your patch?
Regards,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-17 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-15 21:40 [PATCH] ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors tytso
2014-03-15 23:54 ` Azat Khuzhin
2014-03-16 2:38 ` tytso
2014-03-16 14:10 ` Azat Khuzhin
2014-03-16 16:17 ` a3at.mail
2014-03-16 18:46 ` tytso
2014-03-16 20:56 ` a3at.mail
2014-03-17 2:00 ` tytso [this message]
2014-03-17 16:19 ` Azat Khuzhin
2014-03-17 17:53 ` a3at.mail
2014-03-25 0:17 ` tytso
2014-03-25 6:24 ` a3at.mail
2014-04-05 15:51 ` Azat Khuzhin
2014-03-17 17:23 ` Darrick J. Wong
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-02-10 10:25 Azat Khuzhin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140317020029.GC14162@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=a3at.mail@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.