resize2fs: do not clear resize inode for 0 resvd blocks
PATCH 1/1 resize2fs: do not clear resize inode for 0 resvd blocks
I ran into odd behavior where mkfs.ext4 of a 16T filesystem would create a resize inode with 0 reserved blocks, and mark the resize_inode feature.
A subsequent slight downward resize of the filesystem would remove the resize inode, making any further offline resizing impossible.
This is especially odd in light of the fact that a large downward resize (say, to 8T) will actually add blocks to the resize inode - so a small resize removes it, a large resize expands it ...
commit 8ade268cf2fde8629b51bfd1c044a83db88234cd had added this:
If the filesystem is grown to the point where the resize_inode is no longer needed, clean it up properly so e2fsck doesn't have to.
but, it seems e2fsck does not care about this situation, either.
So, simply leave the resize_inode intact in this case, and everything seems to be happy.
Note, this is for the 1.41.xx branch.
---
resize/resize2fs.c +0 -14
@@ -1711,7 +1711,6 @@ static errcode_t fix_resize_inode(ext2_fstruct ext2_inode inode;errcode_t retval;char * block_buf; -blk_t blk;if (!(fs->super->s_feature_compat &EXT2_FEATURE_COMPAT_RESIZE_INODE ))
@@ -1723,20 +1722,6 @@ static errcode_t fix_resize_inode(ext2_f retval =ext2fs_read_inode (fs,EXT2_RESIZE_INO , &inode);if (retval) goto errout; -if (fs->super->s_reserved_gdt_blocks ==0 ) { - fs->super->s_feature_compat &= - ~EXT2_FEATURE_COMPAT_RESIZE_INODE ; -ext2fs_mark_super_dirty (fs); - -if ((blk = inode.i_block[EXT2_DIND_BLOCK ]) !=0 ) -ext2fs_block_alloc_stats (fs, blk,-1 ); - -memset (&inode,0 ,sizeof (inode)); - - retval =ext2fs_write_inode (fs,EXT2_RESIZE_INO , &inode); - goto errout; - }
Ted Ts'o
AppliedQuoted 16 lines · Eric Sandeen
I ran into odd behavior where mkfs.ext4 of a 16T filesystem would create a resize inode with 0 reserved blocks, and mark the
resize_inodefeature.A subsequent slight downward resize of the filesystem would remove the resize inode, making any further offline resizing impossible.
This is especially odd in light of the fact that a large downward resize (say, to 8T) will actually add blocks to the resize inode - so a small resize removes it, a large resize expands it ...
commit
8ade268cf2fde8629b51bfd1c044a83db88234cdhad added this:If the filesystem is grown to the point where the
resize_inodeis no longer needed, clean it up properly so e2fsck doesn't have to.
Quoted 8 lines
but, it seems e2fsck does not care about this situation, either.
So, simply leave the
resize_inodeintact in this case, and everything seems to be happy.Note, this is for the 1.41.xx branch.
Signed-off-by Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
Thanks, applied.
- Ted