From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED26D7F8E for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 03:05:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9416FAC002 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:05:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id jParny7Dlob6bG72 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 01:05:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:05:38 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/30 V2] libxfs: fix root inode handling inconsistencies Message-ID: <20131105090538.GA6114@infradead.org> References: <1383107481-28937-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1383107481-28937-26-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20131030102318.GA31519@infradead.org> <20131030215940.GH6188@dastard> <20131031041343.GK6188@dastard> <20131031150024.GP22359@infradead.org> <20131031220438.GP4446@dastard> <20131101130316.GB14898@infradead.org> <20131104232242.GS6188@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131104232242.GS6188@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:22:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > xfs_initialize_perag_data does the following: > > > > - read in AGI/AGF. This is something we lazily do whenever we need it > > anyway, so no one should rely on it. > > - update the in-core superblock global counters. Seems like the old > > xfs_check relies on this and still needs an equivalent if we care > > enough. No one else seems to care. > > So you are suggesting that I move that initialisation to the > xfs_check code rather than just doing it in the mount code? Or > something else? That seems to be the sanest option if it works out. Otherwise we'd need to keep a flag to let libxfs do it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs