[Ocfs2-tools-devel] [PATCH 1/5] tunefs.ocfs2: Warn if not using complete device

[Sunil Mushran]

Sure. I was in the process of cleaning it up a little.
http://zeniv.linux.org.uk/~smushran/block64.patch

On 01/12/2012 08:32 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Sunil,
>
> Could you delay including these patches for a couple of days? I found
> a couple of issues with the patches I sent last:
>
> 1. OCFS2_FEATURE_COMPAT_JBD2_SB in superblock may not be set for
> block64 compatibility.
> 2. Typo in set_journal_block64_run (block32->block64)
> 3. tunefs.ocfs2 may accept number-of-blocks more than device block size.
>
> I will send the fixed patches once I am sure the fixes work.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Sunil Mushran<sunil.mushran at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sunil Mushran<sunil.mushran at oracle.com>
>>
>>
>> On 12/22/2011 03:42 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>> Sample test case (for a device greater than 16TB):
>>> 1. Format a device with blocksize 4k and block count<    16TB
>>> 2. resize device (-S)
>>> Results: Device is formatted to 16TB even if the device is bigger.
>>>
>>> The patch fails the tunefs.ocfs2 attempt and ask user to explicitly state
>>> block-count to not use the complete device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues<rgoldwyn at suse.de>
>>> ---
>>>   tunefs.ocfs2/op_resize_volume.c |   19 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>   1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tunefs.ocfs2/op_resize_volume.c
>>> b/tunefs.ocfs2/op_resize_volume.c
>>> index 8541374..0426d41 100644
>>> --- a/tunefs.ocfs2/op_resize_volume.c
>>> +++ b/tunefs.ocfs2/op_resize_volume.c
>>> @@ -535,10 +535,23 @@ static errcode_t check_new_size(ocfs2_filesys
>>> *fs, uint64_t new_size,
>>>         }
>>>
>>>         device_clusters = device_blocks>>    b_to_c_bits;
>>> -       if (device_clusters>    UINT32_MAX)
>>> -               device_clusters = UINT32_MAX;
>>> -       if (!try_clusters)
>>> +
>>> +       if (!try_clusters) {
>>> +               if (device_clusters>    UINT32_MAX) {
>>> +                       verbosef(VL_APP,
>>> +                               "Device clusters (%"PRIu64" is greater
>>> than "
>>> +                               "maximum possible clusters %"PRIu32"\n",
>>> +                               device_clusters, UINT32_MAX);
>>> +                       try_blocks = UINT32_MAX<<    b_to_c_bits;
>>> +                       errorf("Device clusters %"PRIu64" is greater than
>>> %"
>>> +                               PRIu32".\nIf you want to resize to
>>> %"PRIu64
>>> +                               " blocks please specify %"PRIu64" as "
>>> +                               "blocks-count.\n", device_clusters,
>>> +                               UINT32_MAX, try_blocks, try_blocks);
>>> +                       return TUNEFS_ET_INVALID_NUMBER;
>>> +               }
>>>                 try_clusters = device_clusters;
>>> +       }
>>>         try_blocks = try_clusters<<    b_to_c_bits;
>>>
>>>         /* Now we're guaranteed that try_clusters is within range */
>>
>
>