From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tao.ma Date: Tue Nov 20 17:14:06 2007 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Initalize bitmap_cpg of ocfs2_super to be the maximum,take 1 In-Reply-To: <20071120234009.GI28607@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20071116082736.GA3732@tma-pc1.cn.oracle.com> <20071116084110.GA3893@tma-pc1.cn.oracle.com> <20071120225859.GG28607@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <47436A4A.1030409@oracle.com> <20071120232233.GH28607@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20071120234009.GI28607@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> Message-ID: <4743869A.9040305@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:22:33PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Sunil Mushran wrote: >> >>> We encountered this during offline resize. >>> >>> While fsck.ocfs2 was updated to fix this issue, we never >>> did address the same in mkfs. >>> >>> As the chances that a user will encounter this is fairly low, >>> we could always bail online resize if it encountered this issue. >>> (A dirty read of the global bitmap from tune should suffice.) >>> >>> If so, ask user to run fsck. >>> >> Yeah, that's fine by me. We need to fix it in mkfs.ocfs2 though, before or >> at the same time this patch series goes in. >> > > Ok, just realized that Tao has those patches in the ocfs2-tools series - > great. > > Tao, just let us know if you tested the file system on a very small fs > created with the updated mkfs.ocfs2. If you haven't, please do and in any > case provide precise details as to how it was tested. > I have tested in some cases, but I would like to add a new script in ocfs2-test so that you can see the more details about it. ;)