Return-Path: Received: from localhost (bix [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4K9O217001578 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:24:02 -0700 Received: from bix [127.0.0.1] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.0) for akpm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 20 May 2004 02:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fire-2.osdl.org (air1.pdx.osdl.net [172.20.0.5]) by mail.osdl.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4K9MqJ10510 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:22:52 -0700 Received: from moraine.clusterfs.com (moraine.clusterfs.com [66.246.132.190]) by fire-2.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K9Mnwr029039 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:22:50 -0700 Received: from schnapps.adilger.int (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by moraine.clusterfs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAA53100CA; Thu, 20 May 2004 05:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by schnapps.adilger.int (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7054C18102; Thu, 20 May 2004 03:22:45 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 03:22:45 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger To: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: problems with ext3 fs, kernels up to 2.6.6-rc2 Message-ID: <20040520092245.GE24219@schnapps.adilger.int> Mail-Followup-To: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20040519104152.GM19183@stingr.net> <20040519170604.GS18086@schnapps.adilger.int> <20040520064051.GP19183@stingr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040520064051.GP19183@stingr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.60 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=1.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on bix On May 20, 2004 10:40 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote: > Replying to Andreas Dilger: > > This seems to fix the majority of the problems, although there are still > > some rare failures in the rename test. > > Just curious. Is it really doing what it should? Is there are cases > where ext3_delete_entry(handle, old_dir, old_de, old_bh) will be > called twice with the same set of parameters? :() Grr, my bad. I had moved this by hand from 2.4 (where this was discovered and where I'm testing) to 2.6.current just to make sure the context and everything was right for submissions and of course botched it. The right patch removes the old call to ext3_delete_entry(): ===== fs/ext3/namei.c 1.52 vs edited ===== --- 1.52/fs/ext3/namei.c Mon May 10 05:25:34 2004 +++ edited/fs/ext3/namei.c Thu May 20 03:16:43 2004 @@ -2264,8 +2264,9 @@ /* * ok, that's it */ - retval = ext3_delete_entry(handle, old_dir, old_de, old_bh); - if (retval == -ENOENT) { + if (le32_to_cpu(old_de->inode) != old_inode->i_ino || + (retval = ext3_delete_entry(handle, old_dir, + old_de, old_bh)) == -ENOENT) { /* * old_de could have moved out from under us. */ Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/