From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tao.ma Date: Wed Jan 2 19:17:43 2008 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] Re: [Ocfs2-tools-devel] [PATCH 5/6] Modify fsck to trust global bitmap than super block.take 3 In-Reply-To: <477C50C5.9060607@oracle.com> References: <20071218011410.GA23473@tma-pc1.cn.oracle.com> <477C50C5.9060607@oracle.com> Message-ID: <477C530D.4010605@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 Sunil Mushran wrote: > Tao Ma wrote: >> In resize, we update the global_bitmap first and then the super block. >> So if there is any corruption between these 2 steps, there will be a >> inconsistence. In kernel we use the information in global_bitmap, >> so fsck.ocfs2 should also trust it during the check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma >> --- >> > Signed-off-by: Sunil Mushran > > This looks correct. However, I am still confused as to how I managed to > get clean runs when testing aborted offline resize cases. In your offline resize design, you write this: * Segfault after writing global bitmap but before the superblock. /fsck will remove all the new BGs that are beyond the end-of-volume as determined by the superblock->num_clusters. So we trust superblock rather than global_bitmap and it works as the design expects when testing aborted offline resize cases. Now the order is reversed, so I think maybe I need to revise your design doc so that it doesn't lead to the "strange" result. Agree? /