Re: [PATCH] ext3: fix trim length underflow with small trim length.
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date: 2011-01-19 11:39:24
On Wed 19-01-11 11:42:50, Lukas Czerner wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Tao Ma wrote:quoted
From: Tao Ma <redacted> We adjust 'len' with s_first_data_block - start in case of start is less than s_first_data_block, but it could underflow in case blocksize=1K, while fstrim_range.len=512 and fstrim_range.start = 0. In this case len happens to be underflow and in the end, although we are safe that last_group check will limit the trim to the whole volume, I am afraid that isn't what the user really want. So this patch fix it. It also adds a new variable s_first_data_block so that the 4 le32_to_cpu can be replaced with 1.Well, I just realized that what are we doing is not exactly what will user expect. User does not really care where the first data block is. What the user will expect is, to trim let's say first one gigabyte of his filesystem, not gigabyte - first data block. So what I suggest is to always add first_data_block to fstrim_range.start and do all the necessary checks for overflow. If no one has any objections I'll put it to the patch.
Well, since we speak about at most 1KB (s_first_data_block is non-zero only when blocksize == 1024 and in that case it is 1), I don't think it really matters and I don't mind whatever solution. What user expects is a bit hard to guess (whether he views 'start' as a start of the filesystem or a start of the device). Maybe the former makes a tad bit more sense but as I said I don't really care so since you're the author of the code I leave it up to you. Honza -- Jan Kara [off-list ref] SUSE Labs, CR