[Ocfs2-tools-devel] bz 1324 status?

[Tiger Yang]

Hi, Goldwyn,

As this bug is urgent , I think you take over this issue is better. but 
I can review your patches and do some test.

Thanks,
tiger

On 08/12/2011 12:02 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi Tiger,
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Tiger Yang<tiger.yang at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> Hi, Goldwyn,
>>
>> I see. Now I met a problem when try to fix the hole on directory inode. We
>> have to check and fix the indexed-dir tree after we changed the i_size, the
>> current code didn't handle this.
>>
> Thanks for the review. Yes, it does not handle directory indexing.
>
>> Sunil,
>> To fix this problem, one way is check and fix the old tree, the other way is
>> delete the old tree and rebuild it, which way is better?
>>
> AFAIK the fsck code does not handle fixing old dx dir tree, it only
> rebuilds in case of corruption.
> The problem with rebuilding it for the directory in this patchset is
> that directory blocks are checked in the next pass (2). The
> dirblock_data which accounts for the list of directory inodes to be
> indexed is not available in pass 1. So, I see one of the two
> possibilities:
>
> 1. Make the dirblock_data structure available across the passes,
> perhaps keep it in the o2fsck_state
>
> 2. Set di->i_dx_root as 0ULL and disable with i_dyn_features in pass
> 1. In pass 2, If the directory is not inline and di->i_dx_root is
> 0ULL, rebuild the index tree for the directory.
>
> The second option will assist my other set of patches which avoid the
> filesystem turning read-only in case of index directory corruptions
> (http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2011-August/008312.html).
>   Hence, I support the second option :)
>
> I will be happy to assist making the patch, if required.
>
> Regards,
>