[U-Boot] [PATCH V5 1/2] ext4fs ls load support

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:29:08AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 02:20 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> > 
> >> On 09/12/2012 03:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On 09/12/2012 05:49 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 01:28:19PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/13/2012 06:52 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear Rob Herring,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In message <50244D5A.3080304@gmail.com> you wrote:
> >>>>>>> I reported already that the prior version that ext4 has issues with
> >>>>>>> sub-directories. I don't think that has been addressed in V5. Some
> >>>>>>> directories show up fine and some don't. So it's kind of random
> >>>>>>> whether u-boot can read a /boot directory. This was after full
> >>>>>>> ubuntu installs. I'd guess a simple test with a couple of files and
> >>>>>>> directories will not show the problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We really need a test case here.  In my (certainly not very extensive)
> >>>>>> tests I didn't see such a problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you please describe what failed for you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do an ubuntu install to a single ext4 fs and then ext2ls gives this:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>> The problem is in the directories with sizes of 0. It does seem to be
> >>>>> directories with higher blkno's. Perhaps the lack of support for hash
> >>>>> table directory entries is a problem. Just guessing here as I don't
> >>>>> know much about ext4 structure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't been able to produce a simple example just creating a bunch
> >>>>> of files and directories, so only the disk after an ubuntu install has
> >>>>> the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> I took an Ubuntu install I had (for x86) that was on a USB drive, had
> >>>> been pretty extensively used, and was is ext4.  I couldn't find any size
> >>>> 0 directories.  Are you able to reproduce this problem on other
> >>>> hardware?  Is the image in question NOT remountable as ext3 (extents is
> >>>> set, generated) ?  My biggest concern is breakage among ext2/3
> >>>> filesystems.  Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> What size partition? It is also fine for me with a small 1.2GB
> >>> partition. I only see the problem with larger partitions (most of a
> >>> 250GB drive).
> >>
> >> This is a 240G partition.
> >>
> >>> I was under the impression that ext4 is not mountable as ext3.
> >>
> >> You can go ext3->"ext4"->ext3, it's only when you have fsck rebuild and
> >> make use of extents, iirc, that it's no longer mountable as ext3.
> > 
> > Maybe you can pick that loop block driver from Pavel [1] and try it on sandbox 
> > target? That might ease testing etc.
> 
> Only if Rob's image (which iirc is hooked up to a qemu target) still
> fails once attached that way.  Rob, am I (a) remembering right that you
> see this on a qemu target and (b) if so does compressing the crap out of
> it yield a small enough file to put on dropbox or some other free cloud
> storage?  Thanks!

Folks?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20120920/c9a4356b/attachment.pgp>