From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D177F50 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 18:33:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4A6AC003 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Z52VGqvBDKLVDgiY for ; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:32:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:54 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] xfs: make superblock version checks reflect reality Message-ID: <20140309003254.GU6851@dastard> References: <1394088890-10713-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140306180534.GA305@infradead.org> <20140306225541.GL6851@dastard> <20140307101527.GC32333@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140307101527.GC32333@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:15:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:55:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > I'd vote to kill XFS_SB_NEEDED_FEATURES and just check the dirv2 bit > > > explicitly. > > > > Ok. The only real reason I did this was in case there's a single bit > > error that clears the dirv2 bit, but it still contains other bits > > that indicate that the superblock is recent enough that we > > understand it's contents and what should bein the fs. e.g. for > > db/repair purposes - if the dir2 bit is not set, but any of the > > above bits are set and the m_dirblklog is and it is sane, we can > > assume that we've lost the feature bit and repair it. > > Seems like we should just special case that in repair instead of > allowing a filesystem to go through in the kernel that is guaranteed to > be corrupted. Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I'll change it to do that. > > Should I just drop it out of the supported feature matrix and drop > > all other checks on that field? That way we can then remove all the > > the crap that tries to validate it from xfs_repair, too. I have no > > idea what is actually valid for this field, so I think we should > > simply drop support of it from everything. > > I think we should pretending we know anything about the shared mount > support. Everytime it came up I failed to find any hint on how it was > supposed to work. *nod*. I'll drop the shared bit from the supported matrix, and also treat sb_shared_vn != 0 a corruption. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs