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 3731E7CB9 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:45:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1311F8F8035 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:45:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8ohOA4cFHFLDfKQo (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:45:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:45:38 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: ASSERT in xlog_find_verify_log_record during xfs/098 Message-ID: <20160301204538.GA6371@infradead.org> References: <56D5E7DA.3080900@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56D5E7DA.3080900@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: Al Viro , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 01:04:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Should that assert even be there? Looks like it's gracefully > handled, I don't see offhand that anything should have caught > this corruption earlier, and we don't really want to bug on disk > corruption. Am I missing something? We used to have a couple of these, especially in log recovery - whoever wrote this code probably though trapping on these corruptions for a debug kernel makes sense. I'm fine with dropping them, and a little audit for more of them might not hurt. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs