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 BF3F37F37 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:18:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04AD304043 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:17:24 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors Message-ID: <20130614161724.GA11235@redhat.com> References: <1371003548-4026-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1371003548-4026-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130613010441.GX20932@sgi.com> <20130613020827.GG29338@dastard> <20130613220903.GA20932@sgi.com> <20130614001306.GM29338@dastard> <20130614160940.GA32736@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130614160940.GA32736@sgi.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: Ben Myers Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > I think your suggestion that non-debug systems could warn instead of > > > fail is a good one, but removing the verifier altogether is > > > inappropriate. > > > > Changing every single verifier in a non-trivial way is not something > > I'm about to do for a -rc6 kernel. Removing the verifiers from log > > recovery just reverts to the pre-3.8 situation, so is perfectly > > acceptable short term solution while we do the more invasive verify > > changes. > > > > > Can you make the metadump available? I need to understand this better > > > before I can sign off. Also: Any idea how far back this one goes? > > > > No, I can't make the metadump available to you - it was provided > > privately and not obfuscated and so you'd have to ask Dave for it. > > Dave (Jones), could you make the metadump available to me? I'd like to > understand this a little bit better. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the > proposition that we should corrupt silently in this case... Sorry, I don't have it any more. I'll see if I can recreate the problem next week and prepare another dump. Dave _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs