Guozhonghua
2014-Sep-01 07:14 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] Bug report and patch request reviews, thanks
Hi? we test one file which is larger than 2T, then we get the information wrong.
Without patch, the result is as below, OCFS2, and you can see that size of the
file and the blocks is not well:
# ls -al /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
-rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
# stat --format="%b %B" /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
820127744 512
# ls -alsi /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
2100482 410063872 -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00
/vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
# ls -al /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
-rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
With patch, the information of the file is correct, and the file may be have
some parse space in it, so the diff of the space can be ingnored:
# stat --format "%b %B" /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
5115095040 512
# ls -alsi /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
2100482 2557547520 -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00
/vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0
The patch is as below, we known that the blocks count is not correct, but we are
not sure the patch has any side-effect with other part of OCFS2, so requesting
reviews.
Would some OCFS2 experts have time to review it and merged it into main line?
Thanks
--- inode.h 2014-08-09 14:23:42.609594669 +0800
+++ inode.h 2014-09-01 14:30:37.224294249 +0800
@@ -157,7 +155,7 @@ static inline blkcnt_t ocfs2_inode_sector_count(struct inode
*inode)
{
int c_to_s_bits = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_clustersize_bits - 9;
- return (blkcnt_t)(OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_clusters << c_to_s_bits);
+ return (blkcnt_t)((unsigned long)OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_clusters <<
c_to_s_bits);
}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
??????????????????????????,?????????????
?????????????????????(??????????????????
???)?????????????????,??????????????????
??!
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from H3C, which
is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of
the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or
partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/attachments/20140901/3760a7c1/attachment.html
Joseph Qi
2014-Sep-01 07:37 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] Bug report and patch request reviews, thanks
On 2014/9/1 15:14, Guozhonghua wrote:> Hi? we test one file which is larger than 2T, then we get the information wrong. > > > > Without patch, the result is as below, OCFS2, and you can see that size of the file and the blocks is not well: > > # ls -al /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > > > # stat --format="%b %B" /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > 820127744 512 > > > > # ls -alsi /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > 2100482 410063872 -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > > > # ls -al /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > > > With patch, the information of the file is correct, and the file may be have some parse space in it, so the diff of the space can be ingnored: > > # stat --format "%b %B" /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > 5115095040 512 > > > > # ls -alsi /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > 2100482 2557547520 -rw------- 1 root root 2618930032640 Aug 29 19:00 /vms/ocfs2lv/test_base_0 > > > > The patch is as below, we known that the blocks count is not correct, but we are not sure the patch has any side-effect with other part of OCFS2, so requesting reviews. > > Would some OCFS2 experts have time to review it and merged it into main line? Thanks > > > > --- inode.h 2014-08-09 14:23:42.609594669 +0800 > > +++ inode.h 2014-09-01 14:30:37.224294249 +0800 > > > > @@ -157,7 +155,7 @@ static inline blkcnt_t ocfs2_inode_sector_count(struct inode *inode) > > { > > int c_to_s_bits = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_clustersize_bits - 9; > > - return (blkcnt_t)(OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_clusters << c_to_s_bits); > > + return (blkcnt_t)((unsigned long)OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_clusters << c_to_s_bits); > > }So you mean the bit operation may lead to overflow if cluster is 1MB? Why not delete the parentheses directly? return (blkcnt_t)OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_clusters << c_to_s_bits;> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ???????????????????????????????????????? > ???????????????????????????????????????? > ???????????????????????????????????????? > ??? > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from H3C, which is > intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > by phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-devel mailing list > Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com > https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel >