From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A577FCD for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:04:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CE18F806F for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HWzO8sDDw9Zz07TQ (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X7hcQ-0002dA-SR for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:04:50 +0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:04:50 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Error setting extent size on a directory Message-ID: <20140717090450.GA27425@infradead.org> References: <20140714070913.GA29541@teal.hq.k1024.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140714070913.GA29541@teal.hq.k1024.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > The xfsctl man page says that an extent size should be settable any time > on a directory, so why would this fail? Looking at the kernel sources, > I see a number of possible cases where EINVAL is returned: And no special casing for directories at all.. > So to me this reads as if the di_nextents check can also fail for a > directory which has extents, contradicting the man page. Which one needs > to be updated? > > The question arises to if the extent size also applies, then, to > allocating extents for a directory - instead of just being inherited for > files (the man page says no). We're not using the extent size hint on the directory itself. So to me it seems we just not check for already allocated blocks if we're setting the extent size on a directory, but instead maybe make sure the directory. What's also a little odd is that we allow setting the extent size on a directory even if the extent size inherit bit is not set, which doesn't make much sense to me. Do you want to prepare a patch to remove the check for directories? At testcase for xfstests that ensures this works also would be highly useful.. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs