Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: Handle rec_len correctly for 64KB blocksize

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

On Nov 12, 2007  09:58 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:52:45AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Did you test this patch before submitting it?
> >
> >   Argh, stupid me. I've just tested that I didn't break anything for normal
> > block size and thought that I cannot make mistake in such a simple thing
> > ;).
> 
> Could I ask you to perhaps include some 64k blocksize test cases that
> would exercise the new codepaths?

One thing I had done to verify that 64kB rec_len was broken was to always
create lost+found with at least 2 disk blocks, since the second block in
lost+found will not have any dirents in it and will tickle this bug.

Patch attached.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Software Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.


[-- Attachment #2: e2fsprogs-large_lpf.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 609 bytes --]

Index: e2fsprogs-cfs/misc/mke2fs.c
===================================================================
--- e2fsprogs-cfs.orig/misc/mke2fs.c
+++ e2fsprogs-cfs/misc/mke2fs.c
@@ -551,7 +551,10 @@ static void create_lost_and_found(ext2_f
 	}
 	
 	for (i=1; i < EXT2_NDIR_BLOCKS; i++) {
-		if ((lpf_size += fs->blocksize) >= 16*1024)
+		/* Ensure that lost+found is at least 2 blocks, so we always
+		 * test large empty blocks for big-block filesystems.  */
+		if ((lpf_size += fs->blocksize) >= 16*1024 &&
+		    lpf_size >= 2 * fs->blocksize)
 			break;
 		retval = ext2fs_expand_dir(fs, ino);
 		if (retval) {