Hi,
I have the following question related to the journaling code in
ext3_new_blocks() function of fs/ext3/balloc.c, any help in this
regard will be greatly appreciated. The code snippet below is taken
from 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 but this code has changed little for a long time
so it's likely that any
- Original Message
From: Alasdair G Kergon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mel Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter
Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
I was trying to build ext4 as a module, and ran into problems because
the online defrag patch is calling do_fsync() which is *not* an exported
symbol, and so can not be called from a module.
Looking at what the routine is doing, there's no reason to call
do_fsync(), and in fact depending on the
diff --git a/fs/ext4/defrag.c b/fs/ext4/defrag.c
index 4ef3dc0..19d2cfd 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/defrag.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/defrag.c
@@ -632,8 +632,9 @@ static int ext4_ext_defrag_victim(struct file
*target_filp,
}
/* Sync journal blocks before reservation */
-
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 08:10:20AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I'd think you'd want to change the printk text as well. defrag: failed
ext4_force_commit (%d)\n maybe?
mmm, good catch, thanks.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:55:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Overall, seems ok. One other question though, when ext4 is a
fully-fledged production filesystem, and the flag requirement is gone,
what stops ext3 filesystems from being silently mounted as ext4, just as
happened with ext4dev
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:04:35AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I just think that ext4.ko running ext3 filesystems needs to be under
explicit control, and not something that happens, occasionally,
accidentally, without the user/administrator requesting it. Least
surprise, and all that...
Hi,
the patch below fixes preparation of commit block in
journal_write_commit_record(). Obviously the bug doesn't really matter
since nobody reported it so far but let's cleanup the code... Andrew, could
you please queue it up? Thanks.
On Wed 23-01-08 20:09:43, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
the patch below fixes preparation of commit block in
journal_write_commit_record(). Obviously the bug doesn't really matter
since nobody reported it so far but let's cleanup the code... Andrew, could
you please queue it up? Thanks.
And the
Hello,
I have the following question related to the journaling code in
ext3_new_blocks() function of fs/ext3/balloc.c, any help in this
regard will be greatly appreciated. The code snippet below is taken
from 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 but this code has changed little for a long time
so it's likely
Hi,
The loop was removed in journal checksum patch. There had been a
discussion (11 Jul 2007: [EXT4 set 8][PATCH 1/1]Add journal checksums)
about this part of code as checksum info was added to commit block.
Regards,
Girish
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 20:10 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed
On Jan 23, 2008 11:53 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Since I'm still hoping that
some point in the future, fs/ext4 could subsume fs/ext3 so we don't
have to worry about bug fixes going into fs/ext2 AND fs/ext3 AND
fs/ext4, I have my own reasons for wanting that.
If any newbie kernel hacker wants
Hi,
On Thu 24-01-08 02:48:41, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
The loop was removed in journal checksum patch. There had been a
discussion (11 Jul 2007: [EXT4 set 8][PATCH 1/1]Add journal checksums)
about this part of code as checksum info was added to commit block.
Ah, OK, thanks for
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:12 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Girish Shilamkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The journal checksum feature adds two new flags i.e
JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ASYNC_COMMIT and JBD2_FEATURE_COMPAT_CHECKSUM.
JBD2_FEATURE_CHECKSUM flag indicates that the commit
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:02 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(bh_uptodate_or_lock);
+/**
Missing newline.
+ * bh_submit_read: Submit a locked buffer for reading
+ * @bh: struct buffer_head
+ *
+ * Returns a negative error
+ */
+int bh_submit_read(struct
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:03 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if (bh_submit_read(bh) 0) {
+ brelse(bh);
+ ext4_error(sb, __FUNCTION__,
Cannot read block bitmap -
- block_group = %lu, block_bitmap =
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:20 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Alex Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Alex Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen [EMAIL
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:09 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t
block,
+ unsigned long max_blocks, struct buffer_head *bh,
+ int create, int extend_disksize)
+{
+
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:15 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The below patch add ioctl for migrating ext3 indirect block mapped inode
to ext4 extent mapped inode.
This patch adds lots of weird and inexplicable single- and double-newlines
in inappropriate places. However it
On Jan 23, 2008 14:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
+#define mb_correct_addr_and_bit(bit, addr) \
+{ \
+ bit += ((unsigned long) addr 3UL) 3; \
+ addr = (void *) ((unsigned long) addr ~3UL); \
+}
Why do these exist?
Hello,
I want to solicit your attention in helping and processing and
securing on my behalf certain funds which i cannot
process because of my position in Government.
The purpose of my contacting you is because I need a foreigner to help me
handle this transaction
When you reply this
Hi,
I was trying to build ext4 as a module, and ran into problems because
the online defrag patch is calling do_fsync() which is *not* an exported
symbol, and so can not be called from a module.
Looking at what the routine is doing, there's no reason to call
do_fsync(), and in fact depending
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:06:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:02 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(bh_uptodate_or_lock);
+/**
Missing newline.
+ * bh_submit_read: Submit a locked buffer for reading
+ * @bh: struct
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the
buffer_boundary() logic. I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary()
handling when this code is in effect. Have you reviewed and tested that
aspect?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:07:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:20 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Alex Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Alex Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by:
25 matches
Mail list logo
