Tags: jinguang-dong/littlefs
Tags
Merge pull request littlefs-project#495 from littlefs-project/devel Minor release: v2.3
Merge pull request littlefs-project#405 from rojer/mfe Fix -Wmissing-field-initializers
Merge pull request littlefs-project#372 from ARMmbed/test-revamp Rework test framework, fix a number of related bugs
Fixed lfs_dir_fetchmatch not understanding overwritten tags Sometimes small, single line code change hides behind it a complicated story. This is one of those times. If you look at this diff, you may note that this is a case of lfs_dir_fetchmatch not correctly handling a tag that invalidates a callback used to search for some condition, in this case a search for a parent, which is invalidated by a later dir tag overwritting the previous dir pair. But how can this happen? Dir-pair-tags are only overwritten during relocations (when a block goes bad or exceeds the block_cycles config option for dynamic wear-leveling). Other dir operations create new directory entries. And the only lfs_dir_fetchmatch condition that relies on overwrites (as opposed to proper deletes) is when we need to find a directory's parent, an operation that only occurs during a _different_ relocation. And a false _positive_, can only happen if we don't have a parent. Which is really unlikely when we search for directory parents! This bug and minimal test case was found by Matthew Renzelmann. In a unfortunate series of events, first a file creation causes a directory split to occur. This creates a new, orphaned metadata-pair containing our new file. However, the revision count on this metadata-pair indicates the pair is due for relocation as a part of wear-leveling. Normally, this is fine, even though this metadata-pair has no parent, the lfs_dir_find should return ENOENT and continue without error. However, here we get hit by our fetchmatch bug. A previous, unrelated relocation overwrites a pair which just happens to contain the block allocated for a new metadata-pair. When we search for a parent, lfs_dir_fetchmatch incorrectly finds this old, outdated metadata pair and incorrectly tells our orphan it's found its parent. As you can imagine the orphan's dissapointment must be immense. So an unfortunately timed dir split triggers a relocation which incorrectly finds a previously written parent that has been outdated by another relocation. As a solution we can outdate our found tag if it is overwritten by an exact match during lfs_dir_fetchmatch. As a part of this I started adding a new set of tests: tests/test_relocations, for aggressive relocations tests. This is already by appended to by another PR. I suspect relocations is relatively under-tested and is becoming more important due to recent improvements in wear-leveling.
Merge pull request littlefs-project#308 from roykuper13/readme-exampl… …e-update-block-cycles Update readme example code in accordance to the block_cycles change
Merge pull request littlefs-project#278 from roykuper13/validate-lfs-… …cfg-sizes lfs: Validate lfs-cfg sizes before performing any arithmetic logics with them
Merge pull request littlefs-project#263 from rojer/wundef Fix build with -Wundef
Fixed limit of inline files based on LFS_ATTR_MAX The maximum limit of inline files and attributes are unrelated, but were not at a point in littlefs v2 development. This should be checking against the bit-field limit in the littlefs tag. Found by lsilvaalmeida
PreviousNext