From: "Bill O'Donnell" <billodo@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 07:10:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160531121007.GA7513@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160530053710.GO26977@dastard>
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 03:37:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > This patch is a further optimization of secondary sb search, in order to
> > handle non-default geometries. Once again, use a similar method to find
> > fs geometry as that of xfs_mkfs. Refactor verify_sb(), creating new
> > sub-function that checks sanity of agblocks and agcount: verify_sb_blocksize().
> >
> > If verify_sb_blocksize verifies sane paramters, use found values for the sb
> > search. Otherwise, try search with default values. If these faster methods
> > both fail, fall back to original brute force slower search.
> >
> > NOTE: patch series "xfs_repair: improved secondary sb search" must be
> > applied before applying this patch.
> > (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2016-05/msg00269.html)
>
> Either this or one of the above patches is causing xfs/030 on
> my xfstests runs to fail with extra output:
>
> xfs/030 4s ... - output mismatch (see /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad)
> --- tests/xfs/030.out 2016-04-06 11:30:45.348477421 +1000
> +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad 2016-05-30 13:06:29.955682633 +1000
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> bad primary superblock - bad magic number !!!
>
> attempting to find secondary superblock...
> +....
> +attempting to find secondary superblock...
> found candidate secondary superblock...
> verified secondary superblock...
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/xfs/030.out /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> Bill, can you please work up a filter or equivalent for xfstests
> so that this extra output doesn't cause unnecessary failures?
> Something like simply filtering all the "attempting to find
> secondary superblock..." and "...." lines from the output would work
> just fine - all we really care about is that a secondary sb is found
> and verified, not how many steps it takes to find it...
Yep. Will do.
Thanks-
Bill
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-31 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-12 20:38 [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-23 14:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-05-23 15:27 ` Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-30 5:37 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-30 22:06 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-05-31 12:12 ` Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-31 12:10 ` Bill O'Donnell [this message]
2016-05-31 17:37 ` [PATCH V2] " Bill O'Donnell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160531121007.GA7513@redhat.com \
--to=billodo@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.