Bug 149061 - ext3 gets i_size/i_blocks wrong on short O_DIRECT write
Summary: ext3 gets i_size/i_blocks wrong on short O_DIRECT write
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 4.0
Hardware: All Linux
medium
low
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Stephen Tweedie
QA Contact: Brian Brock
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2005-02-18 14:09 UTC by Stephen Tweedie
Modified: 2012-06-20 16:05 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 16:05:38 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Stephen Tweedie 2005-02-18 14:09:45 UTC 
Description of problem:
On a short O_DIRECT write --- for example, when a large write is submitted but
the fs fills up halfway through --- disk blocks get allocated but the file's
i_size is not updated.  This leads e2fsck to conclude that i_size is wrong on a
subsequent fsck.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
kernel-2.6.9-5.EL

Steps to Reproduce:
1. write 1MB blocks with O_DIRECT until the fs fills up
2. fsck
  
Actual results:
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 12, i_size is 1889019101184, should be 1889019604992.  Fix? yes

Expected results:
clean fsck.

Not massively urgent --- it's really just a cosmetic issue --- but I'm opening
the bugzilla so it doesn't get forgotten about completely.
Comment 1 Jiri Pallich 2012-06-20 16:05:38 UTC 
Thank you for submitting this issue for consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The release for which you requested us to review is now End of Life. 
Please See https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/

If you would like Red Hat to re-consider your feature request for an active release, please re-open the request via appropriate support channels and provide additional supporting details about the importance of this issue.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.