From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:41703 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752869AbbBJSjg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:39:36 -0500 Message-ID: <54DA5060.7080201@fb.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:39:28 -0500 From: Josef Bacik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Sandeen , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] Btrfs-progs: Introduce metadump_v2 References: <1423512199-16552-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> <1423512199-16552-10-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> <54DA4DE8.4070701@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54DA4DE8.4070701@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/10/2015 01:28 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/9/15 2:03 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> The METADUMP super flag makes us skip doing the chunk tree reading which isn't >> helpful for the new restore since we have a valid chunk tree. But we still want >> to have a way for the kernel to know that this is a metadump restore so it >> doesn't do things like verify data checksums. We also want to skip some of the >> device extent checks in fsck since those will obviously not match. Thanks, > > coverity points out that the "metadump_v2" flag is never set to anything but 0. > > # git show 797a937e | grep metadump_v2 > Btrfs-progs: Introduce metadump_v2 > + int metadump_v2 = 0; > + (!metadump_v2 && > + if (metadump_v2) > # > > is that ... intentional? > Sort of? So I originally skipped these checks with metadump_v2 set, but then I fixed btrfs-image to fix the chunk tree, so I deleted that stuff. However btrfs-image doesn't fix everything so we still want to skip sometimes. Soooooo I'll just delete this bit and add it back when I decide what I want. Thanks, Josef