From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail.thb.de ([62.225.75.172] helo=mail.bury.com)
 by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1UK2rM-0000WN-3Q
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:34:29 +0000
Received: from [172.20.50.50] (port=57411)
 by mail.bury.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
 (envelope-from <brandt@bury.com>) id 1UK2rH-0003kn-0A
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:34:23 +0100
Message-ID: <51500C0E.9090800@bury.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:34:22 +0100
From: Thomas Brandt <brandt@bury.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Master node recovery /corruption
References: <514735EE.5050806@bury.com>
In-Reply-To: <514735EE.5050806@bury.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

Am 18.03.2013 16:42, schrieb Thomas Brandt:
> Hi,
> 
> I've a little question regarding the recovery of a master node.
> In my case the first master node was corrupted and could not be recovered.
> 
> After taking a look to the code:
> /fs/ubifs/recovery.c
> 
> int ubifs_recover_master_node(struct ubifs_info *c)
> {
> 	void *buf1 = NULL, *buf2 = NULL, *cor1 = NULL, *cor2 = NULL;
> 	struct ubifs_mst_node *mst1 = NULL, *mst2 = NULL, *mst;
> 	const int sz = c->mst_node_alsz;
> 	int err, offs1, offs2;
> 
> 	dbg_rcvry("recovery");
> 
> 	err = get_master_node(c, UBIFS_MST_LNUM, &buf1, &mst1, &cor1);
> 	if (err)
> 		goto out_free;
> 
> 	err = get_master_node(c, UBIFS_MST_LNUM + 1, &buf2, &mst2, &cor2);
> 	if (err)
> 		goto out_free;
> 
> I see that if getting the first master node fails the function returns
> without trying to get the second master node, which should be as far as
> I understand it, a mirror of the first master node?!.
> 
> Is there any reason why it must be handled in that way?
> Because after I've done a little hack (don't care that first node fails)
> ithe first master node was recovered from the second one and it could be
> mounted without any errors.
> 
> At the moment it difficult for me to say whats right or wrong!?
> Might there be a bug?
> 
> Cheers,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> 

Hello again!

Does somebody take care of this?

BR,
Thomas