* [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes
@ 2023-10-03 23:01 Daeho Jeong
2023-10-04 23:26 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daeho Jeong @ 2023-10-03 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team; +Cc: Daeho Jeong
From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
---
fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
--- a/fsck/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck/fsck.c
@@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
- for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
if (!addr)
continue;
--
2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes
2023-10-03 23:01 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes Daeho Jeong
@ 2023-10-04 23:26 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-10-04 23:37 ` Daeho Jeong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2023-10-04 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daeho Jeong; +Cc: Daeho Jeong, kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 10/03, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
>
> For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> ---
> fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
> --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
It seems we need to use the inode block passing by fsck_failed_reconnect_file().
> addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
> if (!addr)
> continue;
3012 fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
3013 if (addr == NEW_ADDR)
And, we also need to skip if addr == COMPRESS_ADDR here?
3014 continue;
3015 f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, addr);
3016 }
> --
> 2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes
2023-10-04 23:26 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2023-10-04 23:37 ` Daeho Jeong
2023-10-04 23:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daeho Jeong @ 2023-10-04 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: Daeho Jeong, kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/03, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >
> > For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> > ---
> > fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> > index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
> > --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> > +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> > @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
>
> It seems we need to use the inode block passing by fsck_failed_reconnect_file().
This function is for direct nodes. Is it correct to use inode block here?
>
> > addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
> > if (!addr)
> > continue;
>
> 3012 fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> 3013 if (addr == NEW_ADDR)
>
> And, we also need to skip if addr == COMPRESS_ADDR here?
>
> 3014 continue;
> 3015 f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, addr);
> 3016 }
>
> > --
> > 2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes
2023-10-04 23:37 ` Daeho Jeong
@ 2023-10-04 23:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-10-05 0:04 ` Daeho Jeong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2023-10-04 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daeho Jeong; +Cc: Daeho Jeong, kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 10/04, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/03, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> > >
> > > For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
> > > --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> > > +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > > fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > > f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
> > >
> > > - for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
> > > + for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
> >
> > It seems we need to use the inode block passing by fsck_failed_reconnect_file().
>
> This function is for direct nodes. Is it correct to use inode block here?
523 unsigned int addrs_per_block(struct f2fs_inode *i)
524 {
525 if (!LINUX_S_ISREG(le16_to_cpu(i->i_mode)) ||
526 !(le32_to_cpu(i->i_flags) & F2FS_COMPR_FL))
527 return DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK;
528 return ALIGN_DOWN(DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK, 1 << i->i_log_cluster_size);
529 }
If the inode is compressed, it seems it has to be aligned to cluster size.
>
> >
> > > addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
> > > if (!addr)
> > > continue;
> >
> > 3012 fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > 3013 if (addr == NEW_ADDR)
> >
> > And, we also need to skip if addr == COMPRESS_ADDR here?
> >
> > 3014 continue;
> > 3015 f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, addr);
> > 3016 }
> >
> > > --
> > > 2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes
2023-10-04 23:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2023-10-05 0:04 ` Daeho Jeong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daeho Jeong @ 2023-10-05 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: Daeho Jeong, kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:55 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/04, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/03, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > > From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
> > > > --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > > > fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > > > f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
> > > >
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
> > >
> > > It seems we need to use the inode block passing by fsck_failed_reconnect_file().
> >
> > This function is for direct nodes. Is it correct to use inode block here?
>
> 523 unsigned int addrs_per_block(struct f2fs_inode *i)
> 524 {
> 525 if (!LINUX_S_ISREG(le16_to_cpu(i->i_mode)) ||
> 526 !(le32_to_cpu(i->i_flags) & F2FS_COMPR_FL))
> 527 return DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK;
> 528 return ALIGN_DOWN(DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK, 1 << i->i_log_cluster_size);
> 529 }
>
> If the inode is compressed, it seems it has to be aligned to cluster size.
makes sense. Thanks~!
>
> >
> > >
> > > > addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
> > > > if (!addr)
> > > > continue;
> > >
> > > 3012 fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > > 3013 if (addr == NEW_ADDR)
> > >
> > > And, we also need to skip if addr == COMPRESS_ADDR here?
> > >
> > > 3014 continue;
> > > 3015 f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, addr);
> > > 3016 }
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-05 0:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-03 23:01 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes Daeho Jeong
2023-10-04 23:26 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-10-04 23:37 ` Daeho Jeong
2023-10-04 23:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-10-05 0:04 ` Daeho Jeong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).