[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds
    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Martin Bligh wrote:
    > Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > > I expect you'll find it's
    > > ext2-reservations-bring-ext2-reservations-code-in-line-with-latest-ext3.patch
    > > which gets stuck in a loop there for me too: back it out and all seems fine.
    > >
    > > It's not obvious which part of the patch is to blame: mostly it's
    > > cleanup, but a few variables do change size: I'm currently narrowing
    > > down to where a fix is needed.
    > Humpf. that was meant to be one of those "so obvious I can't screw it
    > up" patches.

    Never underestimate yourself, Martin ;)

    > typedef unsigned long ext2_fsblk_t;
    > typedef int ext2_grpblk_t;
    > in ext2_alloc_blocks we do change from "unsigned long long" to
    > "unsigned long" for new_blocks[], but akpm thinks that was garbage
    > before (same for ext2_alloc_branch's current_block)

    Yes, I agree, those particular changes looked just fine,
    and indeed they're not to blame.

    > The ext2_grpblk_t ones all look innocuous.

    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).

    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 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.


    --- 2.6.19-rc5-mm2/fs/ext2/balloc.c 2006-11-14 12:10:07.000000000 +0000
    +++ linux/fs/ext2/balloc.c 2006-11-14 19:34:06.000000000 +0000
    @@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ int ext2_new_blocks(struct inode *inode,
    struct buffer_head *gdp_bh;
    int group_no;
    int goal_group;
    - ext2_fsblk_t ret_block; /* filesyetem-wide allocated block */
    + int ret_block; /* filesystem-wide allocated block */
    int bgi; /* blockgroup iteration index */
    int target_block;
    int performed_allocation = 0;
    @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ allocated:

    if (ret_block + num - 1 >= le32_to_cpu(es->s_blocks_count)) {
    ext2_error(sb, "ext2_new_blocks",
    - "block("E2FSBLK") >= blocks count(%d) - "
    + "block(%d) >= blocks count(%d) - "
    "block_group = %d, es == %p ", ret_block,
    le32_to_cpu(es->s_blocks_count), group_no, es);
    goto out;
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-14 21:23    [W:2.548 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site