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 000647F50 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:15:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D76304066 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id z2nIPeVL7y8lbmas (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:15:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:15:27 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] xfs: make superblock version checks reflect reality Message-ID: <20140307101527.GC32333@infradead.org> References: <1394088890-10713-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140306180534.GA305@infradead.org> <20140306225541.GL6851@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140306225541.GL6851@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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:55:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'd vote to kill XFS_SB_NEEDED_FEATURES and just check the dirv2 bit > > explicitly. > > Ok. The only real reason I did this was in case there's a single bit > error that clears the dirv2 bit, but it still contains other bits > that indicate that the superblock is recent enough that we > understand it's contents and what should bein the fs. e.g. for > db/repair purposes - if the dir2 bit is not set, but any of the > above bits are set and the m_dirblklog is and it is sane, we can > assume that we've lost the feature bit and repair it. Seems like we should just special case that in repair instead of allowing a filesystem to go through in the kernel that is guaranteed to be corrupted. > Should I just drop it out of the supported feature matrix and drop > all other checks on that field? That way we can then remove all the > the crap that tries to validate it from xfs_repair, too. I have no > idea what is actually valid for this field, so I think we should > simply drop support of it from everything. I think we should pretending we know anything about the shared mount support. Everytime it came up I failed to find any hint on how it was supposed to work. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs