# Re: \[RFC\]\[PATCH 3/8 v2\] ext4: initialize extent status tree

- From: Zheng Liu \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-09-26 03:44:10 
- List: linux-ext4
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-ext4/2012/09/67438
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-ext4/2012/08/66633/t.md

```text
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37:40PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:24:26AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > > Can you let me know what changes you need to make?  If it is to add
> > > new features or new sanity checks, does it make sense to simply make
> > > it as new commits to existing patch set?  Or are there fundamental
> > > problems with the current set, that would be better to fix in the
> > > current set of commits?  (Or is it just minor stylistic/spelling
> > > fixes?)
> > > 
> > > Thanks!!
> > 
> > In new patch set, there is three changes as beblow:
> > 
> > 1. add a sanity check in ext4_evict_inode()
> > 2. fix a bug in ext4_find_delalloc_range().  This bug is reported by
> > xfstest #230 when we enable bigalloc feature.
> > 3. Add a new rwlock to protect extent status tree.
> > 
> > So I think that we can only add a sanity check and fix the bigalloc bug,
> > and then apply this patch set because the changes are minor.  For adding
> > a new lock to protect extent status tree, we can add this feature in a
> > new patch.  If you think it is OK, I can generate a new patch set, do
> > some tests using xfstest, and submit it as soon as possible.  What's
> > your opinion?
> 
> Do you think you can get me the patches by the end of the week?  If
> so, that should work.

Before this weekend, I can finish a new patch set with (1) adding a sanity
check and (2) fixing bigalloc bug.  For adding a new lock, it is
unstable now.  So this lock will not be included in this patch set.

Regards,
Zheng
```