![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Never underestimate yourself, Martin ;) Thanks ;-) > Yes, those all looked like no-ops. The guilty party is ext2_new_blocks: > i386, x86_64 and ppc64 are now happily building on ext2s with this patch > below (I've been lazy, could have deleted your "E2FSBLK" addition too). Yup, we started throwing away the error return code ;-( > But I haven't attempted to correlate it with the loops seen (with OOMs > too on the x86_64, no idea why, but they've likewise melted away with > this patch). And I'm dubious whether it's the _right_ fix: the whole > mess of ints, unsigned longs and __u32s looks tricky to me, not some- > thing to sort out in a hurry - I'm only working with small filesystems > here (looped on a tmpfs file). (And if ret_block really should be an > ext2_fsblk_t there, shouldn't ext2_new_blocks return an ext2_fsblk_t > rather than an int?) I was trying to harmonize it with what ext3 code does, but as Andrew understands this code a thousand times better than I, hopefully it's all fixed properly ;-) > I see Andrew's sent me an alternative patch to try, I'll give that > a whirl now; and see if just making ext2_new_blocks return an > ext2_fsblk_t would do it too. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-14 21:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||