From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F747F58 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:17:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3606A8F8035 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XwDR339m6tPd2mAq for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:17:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:17:46 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Keep sb_bad_features2 consistent with sb_features2 Message-ID: <20141223221746.GI4521@dastard> References: <1418848046-11265-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20141217212255.GZ24183@dastard> <20141218095919.GA13705@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141218095919.GA13705@quack.suse.cz> 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: Jan Kara Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 18-12-14 08:22:55, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 09:27:26PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Currently when we modify sb_features2, we store the same value also in > > > sb_bad_features2. However in most places we forget to mark field > > > sb_bad_features2 for logging and thus it can happen that a change to it > > > is lost. This results in an inconsistent sb_features2 and > > > sb_bad_features2 fields e.g. after xfstests test xfs/187. > > > > > > Fix the problem by changing XFS_SB_FEATURES2 to actually mean both > > > sb_features2 and sb_bad_features2 fields since this is always what we > > > want to log. This isn't ideal because the fact that XFS_SB_FEATURES2 > > > means two fields could cause some problem in future however the code is > > > hopefully less error prone that it is now. > > > > Actually, I have patches that fix this differently that I'm planning > > to push for the 3.20 cycle. They get rid of the "update random SB > > fields" problem altogether simply by logging and updating the entire > > SB every time. > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-09/msg00448.html > OK, thanks for info. FWIW, I'll pull the fixes you have posted and rebase the rework I have on top of them. That way we have fixes that can be backported easily without pulling the entire rework in the commit history. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs