From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not convert to indirect with bigalloc enabled Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:10:11 +0800 Message-ID: <20130408061011.GB328@gmail.com> References: <1365070685-5088-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu To: Lukas Czerner Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:53062 "EHLO mail-pd0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751943Ab3DHFxU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 01:53:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u11so3011904pdi.8 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1365070685-5088-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:18:05PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > With bigalloc feature enabled we do not support indirect addressing at all > so we have to prevent extent addressing to indirect addressing > conversion in this case. The problem has been introduced with the commit > "ext4: support simple conversion of extent-mapped inodes to use i_blocks" > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner > --- > fs/ext4/extents.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c > index 6c5a70a..ddb6628 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c > @@ -4735,6 +4735,10 @@ int ext4_ind_migrate(struct inode *inode) > (!ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS))) > return -EINVAL; > > + if (EXT4_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(inode->i_sb, > + EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_BIGALLOC)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem); > ret = ext4_ext_check_inode(inode); > if (ret) I am wandering whether ext4_ind_migrate needs to be moved into fs/ext4/migrate.c file. Maybe it is better. Regards, - Zheng