Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method

["Bill O'Donnell" <billodo@redhat.com>]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:06:25PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 30, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> 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...
> 
> Seems like the best fix is to not print that twice in the first place?

The double print of that did make me wonder. I agree we should
only print it once.

Thanks-
Bill

> 
> -Eric
> 
> >     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...
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dave.
> > -- 
> > Dave Chinner
> > david@fromorbit.com
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > xfs mailing list
> > xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs