From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196F57F69 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:31:31 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:31:27 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 V2] xfs_logprint: Handle multiply-logged inode fields Message-ID: <20130128213127.GD27055@sgi.com> References: <5092A1DE.10609@redhat.com> <5092A2B6.2000907@redhat.com> <5092A46A.8080909@sandeen.net> <20130122175530.GR27055@sgi.com> <20130122210511.GK2498@dastard> <5106E3EE.2030601@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5106E3EE.2030601@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:47:42PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/22/13 3:05 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:55:30AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > >> Hey Eric, > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 11:33:46AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> As xlog_print_trans_inode() stands today, it will error > >>> out if more than one flag is set on f->ilf_fields: > >>> > >>> xlog_print_trans_inode: illegal inode type > >>> > >>> but this is a perfectly valid case, to have i.e. a data and > >>> an attr flag set. > >>> > >>> Following is a pretty big reworking of the function to > >>> handle more than one field type set. > >> > >> I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. I have a few stupid questions. > >> > >>> I've tested this by a simple test such as creating one > >>> file on an selinux box, so that data+attr is set, and > >>> logprinting; I've also tested by running logprint after > >>> subsequent xfstest runs (although we hit other bugs that > >>> way). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > >>> --- > > Ben, Mark - > > Where are we at with this one? We have a partner who is interested in the fix. > Do you want anything more from me before it can be merged? Hey Eric, I think it's ready to be merged... It looks like you reposted Jan 02 and I replied to the wrong one. If that code isn't significantly different we're good to go. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs