[PATCH] Set JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on filesystems larger than 32-bit blocks

[PATCH] Set JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on filesystems larger than 32-bit blocks

[Jose R. Santos]

Set the journals JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on devices with more
than 32bit block sizes during mount time.  This ensure proper record
lenth when writing to the journal.

Signed-off-by: Jose R. Santos <jrs@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
---
 fs/ext4/super.c |   11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-04 11:01:20.028360650 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-05 21:14:33.974854532 -0500
@@ -1824,6 +1824,13 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super
 		goto failed_mount3;
 	}
 
+	if (ext4_blocks_count(es) > 0xffffffff &&
+	    !jbd2_journal_set_features(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_journal, 0, 0,
+				       JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT)) {
+		printk(KERN_ERR "ext4: Failed to set 64-bit journal feature\n");
+		goto failed_mount4;
+	}
+
 	/* We have now updated the journal if required, so we can
 	 * validate the data journaling mode. */
 	switch (test_opt(sb, DATA_FLAGS)) {


-JRS

Re: [PATCH] Set JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on filesystems larger than 32-bit blocks

[Laurent Vivier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

Jose R. Santos wrote:
> Set the journals JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on devices with more
> than 32bit block sizes during mount time.  This ensure proper record
> lenth when writing to the journal.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jose R. Santos <jrs@us.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/super.c |   11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-04 11:01:20.028360650 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-05 21:14:33.974854532 -0500
> @@ -1824,6 +1824,13 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super
>  		goto failed_mount3;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (ext4_blocks_count(es) > 0xffffffff &&

Perhaps you should use 0xffffffffULL ?

> +	    !jbd2_journal_set_features(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_journal, 0, 0,
> +				       JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT)) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "ext4: Failed to set 64-bit journal feature\n");
> +		goto failed_mount4;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* We have now updated the journal if required, so we can
>  	 * validate the data journaling mode. */
>  	switch (test_opt(sb, DATA_FLAGS)) {

Regards,
Laurent
-- 
------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net  --------------
       "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
  indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Set JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on filesystems larger than 32-bit blocks

[Jose R. Santos]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:56:10 +0200
Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> wrote:

> Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > Set the journals JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on devices with more
> > than 32bit block sizes during mount time.  This ensure proper record
> > lenth when writing to the journal.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jose R. Santos <jrs@us.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/super.c |   11 +++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-04 11:01:20.028360650 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/fs/ext4/super.c	2007-06-05 21:14:33.974854532 -0500
> > @@ -1824,6 +1824,13 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super
> >  		goto failed_mount3;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (ext4_blocks_count(es) > 0xffffffff &&
> 
> Perhaps you should use 0xffffffffULL ?

Ah yes...  Thanks for pointing that out.

I will make that change and add you to the Signed-off-by list if its OK
with you.

Thanks

-JRS