From: "Bill O'Donnell" <billodo@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 07:10:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160531121007.GA7513@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160530053710.GO26977@dastard>
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 03:37:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > This patch is a further optimization of secondary sb search, in order to
> > handle non-default geometries. Once again, use a similar method to find
> > fs geometry as that of xfs_mkfs. Refactor verify_sb(), creating new
> > sub-function that checks sanity of agblocks and agcount: verify_sb_blocksize().
> >
> > If verify_sb_blocksize verifies sane paramters, use found values for the sb
> > search. Otherwise, try search with default values. If these faster methods
> > both fail, fall back to original brute force slower search.
> >
> > NOTE: patch series "xfs_repair: improved secondary sb search" must be
> > applied before applying this patch.
> > (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2016-05/msg00269.html)
>
> Either this or one of the above patches is causing xfs/030 on
> my xfstests runs to fail with extra output:
>
> xfs/030 4s ... - output mismatch (see /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad)
> --- tests/xfs/030.out 2016-04-06 11:30:45.348477421 +1000
> +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad 2016-05-30 13:06:29.955682633 +1000
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> bad primary superblock - bad magic number !!!
>
> attempting to find secondary superblock...
> +....
> +attempting to find secondary superblock...
> found candidate secondary superblock...
> verified secondary superblock...
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/xfs/030.out /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> Bill, can you please work up a filter or equivalent for xfstests
> so that this extra output doesn't cause unnecessary failures?
> Something like simply filtering all the "attempting to find
> secondary superblock..." and "...." lines from the output would work
> just fine - all we really care about is that a secondary sb is found
> and verified, not how many steps it takes to find it...
Yep. Will do.
Thanks-
Bill
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-31 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-12 20:38 [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-23 14:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-05-23 15:27 ` Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-30 5:37 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-30 22:06 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-05-31 12:12 ` Bill O'Donnell
2016-05-31 12:10 ` Bill O'Donnell [this message]
2016-05-31 17:37 ` [PATCH V2] " Bill O'Donnell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160531121007.GA7513@redhat.com \
--to=billodo@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox