Re: [PATCH 00/22] xfs: metadata CRCs, fourth version

Ben Myers
2013-04-27T20:43:01Z

Hi Dave,

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:11:10PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> New CRC patchset. Previous versions:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-01/msg00328.html
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-02/msg00451.html
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00291.html
>
> This version is based on 3.9-rc4 + TOT xfsdev. 3.9-rc5 has loopback
> bugs that make it useless for testing, so I've just kept my tree on
> -rc4.
>
> New in this patch set:
>
> - numerous bug fixes
> - cleanups to addresse Bens review comments
> - logs entire inode allocation buffers
> - reworks the buffer type tracking for log recovery
> - fixes the endian issues reported by sparse
> - splits out the symlink code rearrangement
> - adds support for v5 superblock feature masks
> - add mount warnings about CRC support being experimental
>
> Still to do:
>
> - Documentation (half written, not in series)
> - DT_* type fields in the directory entries. This can be
> done with a feature bit if not done in time.
> - storage of attributes larger than 256 bytes in shortform
> attribute forks. Same comment about a feature bit.
>
> The addition of the feature mask support to the superblock added a
> new field to the superblock - a log compatibility feature mask. This
> is to allow new transactions and recovery features to be added and
> prevent kernels that don't understand those features from performing
> log recovery. The idea is that clean logs can be mounted by kernels
> that don't support the new feature if everything else is compatible,
> but if they require log recovery the mount will be aborted. This
> means pure log changes don't require a compat/incompat/rocompat
> feature bit to be set.
>
> The result of adding this is that all the old CRC enabled
> filesystems will not work with this kernel - the CRC field location
> changed, and that makes the mount fail hard. So a new userspace will
> be needed to test the CRC side of this patchset. (Coming soon!)
>
> Comments, testing welcome...

I've pulled in this series. There are still a few outstanding questions
from review. I'm confident that we can get them sorted in the coming week.

Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>

Cheers,
Ben