Re: [PANIC] ufs_dirbad: bad dir

On 16 Oct, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Ach.  sigh.  Another false alarm.  Sorry.  The code is fine.  It's
>     because the 'end' block is calculated inclusively, e.g.
>     end_lbn = start_lbn + len - 1.  I'm still investigating it.
> 
>     There is a bug if the range reallocblks is called with spans
>     more then two blockmaps, but I don't think that case can occur in real
>     life due to limitations in the range passed by the caller.  Probably
>     worth a KASSERT, though.

Is there any correlation between this problem and the file system block
size?  I've *never* encountered this problem, but I've only used block
sizes up to 16K, and mostly just 4K and 8K.  I seem to have a dim memory
of a mention of problems of some sort with large block sizes.