From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ashish Sangwan <ashishsangwan2@gmail.com>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linkinjeon@gmail.com
Subject: Re: UDF alternate anchor block detection
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:50:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111006215046.GL31367@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOiN93m2OUnv95jpCT++Edv0yCwWG1mWa6uAYsuk2MGjKHZpJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Fri 30-09-11 11:02:34, Ashish Sangwan wrote:
> While mounting UDF media, when the primary AVDP is not found at block 256,
> UDF code tries to read-in the alternate AVDP.
> In the function udf_find_anchor, udf_scan_anchors is called 3 times, where
> each call to udf_scan_anchors read 12 blocks.
> In case there is no alternate AVDP stored, a total of 36 blocks are read
> before mount fails - causing time delay for Mount Failure.
>
> After first call to udf_scan_anchors and before the second call there is
> varconv conversion, for the older drivers, which skips 7 blocks after every
> 32 blocks. What are these older drivers? Do we still require this code?
Frankly, I don't know what are these older drives. The code has been like
this when I started maintaining it and I didn't want to introduce
regressions so I kept the varconv code in.
> After varconv conversion, why is there a third call to udf_scan_anchors? In
> the 1st call and 3rd call to udf_scan_anchors, exactly same blocks are read,
> so this 3rd call seems to be redundant.
This is not true - the second call uses
udf_variable_to_fixed(sbi->s_last_block) as the last block on the media
while the third call uses sbi->s_last_block as the last block on the media
(both these scans are performed with varconv enabled). Again I have not
seen a drive / medium where this would be needed but I believe original
author had some reason to put the code in.
I agree that the anchor searching code is a pain but that's how the
standard is defined...
> I suggest this modified code for udf_find_anchor :-
> lastblock =
> udf_scan_anchors(sb,udf_variable_to_fixed(sbi->s_last_block),fileset);
> if (lastblock)
> goto out;
> else {
> /* VARCONV didn't help. Clear it. */
> UDF_CLEAR_FLAG(sb, UDF_FLAG_VARCONV);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Please give your opininon to these 2 above points. If the code change seems
> relevant than I can make patch for it.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-06 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAOiN93m2OUnv95jpCT++Edv0yCwWG1mWa6uAYsuk2MGjKHZpJQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-10-06 21:50 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2011-10-06 23:08 ` UDF alternate anchor block detection NamJae Jeon
2011-10-03 11:46 UDF: " Amit Sahrawat
2011-10-04 14:51 ` Marcin Slusarz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111006215046.GL31367@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=ashishsangwan2@gmail.com \
--cc=linkinjeon@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox