From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:34:40 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V5 1/2] ext4fs ls load support In-Reply-To: <5051EDB4.8030505@ti.com> References: <1326131690-25090-1-git-send-email-uma.shankar@samsung.com> <50511373.2090209@gmail.com> <50512E79.9090402@ti.com> <201209131120.16766.marex@denx.de> <5051EDB4.8030505@ti.com> Message-ID: <20120920183440.GC1763@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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: