On 2024/12/3 14:37, Jooyung Han wrote:
(I forgot to reply all)
Yeah, I received that.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 11:36 AM Gao Xiang <hsiang...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
On 2024/12/3 10:20, Jooyung Han wrote:
Hi Gao,
I found that in the loop erofs_iget_from_srcpath() is called in
different order due to readdir and erofs_iget_from_srcpath() calls
erofs_new_inode() which fills i_ino[0] for newly created inode. I
think this i_ino[0] having different values caused the difference in
the output.
Oh, okay, that makes sense, I think we'd better move
inode->i_ino[0] = sbi->inos++; /* inode serial number */
to erofs_mkfs_dump_tree() (since we'd better to leave
i_ino[0] stable even without dumping from localdir later.)
and even clean up a bit.
If you don't have more time to clean up this, let's just
commit a patch to fix this directly.
Sounds good to me ;-)
To be honest, I don't know the stuff well enough for this cleanup.
Ok, anyway if you could submit a patch that moves
inode->i_ino[0] = sbi->inos++;
from erofs_new_inode() to erofs_prepare_inode_buffer()
I will apply directly.
Also I'd like to update it as
inode->i_ino[0] = ++sbi->inos;
Since `i_ino == 0` is invalid...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Thanks,
Jooyung
