All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: a3at.mail@gmail.com
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: "open list:EXT4 FILE SYSTEM" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:53:02 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140317175302.GD19885@azat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG5DWogdTPBOfccVa3xGciLaRedPC1memAmjxnG2uEwSVV64DA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 08:19:47PM +0400, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:00 AM,  <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > 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:
> 
> Sorry I didn't look good at diff of two patches, my mistake.
> 
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Yes, I actually test v3 patch, but not on the top of dev branch,
> instead the dev branch was on the top of v3 patch.
> (but it changes nothing), with "-O bigalloc" and  "-o block_validity"
> 
> Also today I recheck this using kvm/qemu, with v3 patch on the top of
> ext4 dev branch, and still nothing, here is last commits:
> 62f5f55 ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors
> eb3e7ab ext4: fix partial cluster handling for bigalloc file systems
> 97d3979 ext4: delete path dealloc code in ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents
> 
> The only difference between your tests and my, is that you have i386,
> while i have x86_64. But I really doubt that this is significantly.

I was wrong, I've just tested on i386, and got the same errors as you.

> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >                                                 - Ted
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Respectfully
> Azat Khuzhin

-- 
Respectfully
Azat Khuzhin

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-17 17:53 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
2014-03-17 16:19               ` Azat Khuzhin
2014-03-17 17:53                 ` a3at.mail [this message]
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=20140317175302.GD19885@azat \
    --to=a3at.mail@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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.