From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8BD3A95E for ; Sat, 9 May 2026 00:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778288082; cv=none; b=qMPspwYFbzkjr4dxqSCXjUs5ImppbwBQDqHtxEH2IHr3tVuU9zwJzbeyUMv38eSAPzVfHprOuwP1fA16+BMDs3dyBW+bQul5S/p8NKDDyCx0bupPfjqIlkQOs6v3VNtvQCJv92qwL/LRlMFf8RFdT+nnHSAor3VnyBLcZzi/3hw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778288082; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7/jCYR44pByV9kMAB6LEFrkEwPRMj5mjzX6sRoaAvUs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WUPIfYCNaB092OCMFoZJuv5KkEt1BEkGyaWuu9BxRjtTXI8m4fWU0O0WC+qIWEek1FlXYt2RmNKIKCL0NmL3YJGSWW9H2Du8Bz72LbpD6bk+MdYqVQAmzJUMETKUAZd/YZzPrKIZe1dm7gSYNlslDDv6PFqYG5QJcq9vRwwW0NM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FUw/xYaD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FUw/xYaD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94A25C2BCB0; Sat, 9 May 2026 00:54:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778288082; bh=7/jCYR44pByV9kMAB6LEFrkEwPRMj5mjzX6sRoaAvUs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FUw/xYaDEKdpufkp+DlDQLurnMyAdhimSKIF5u/m0j3SETQf0f1KaZTAuNk9q9Hwr d+CYa/hxHwiE60YoFRbNWpDAE38l/Zd8Ylvldg6WlLXseG9ckxLekXfhp1HNlWTkVf Xuo25aEZyewCZqUzXxdqQJHRHkQzyiJx8S1WWlC+LGv1mytnTzR+qr7wpscLVlQsHr iOj+yRjMqQrzO9zuKnTtaM1MONJK67Qw7br1b0fYTRKX8fbj8Ams1IXqwOWJzoPLMy IvBga7pEFJfS0LfgIs0GuPtPUmtiI9J1G6twWkrXLk9Gojv72luStr7NfD4UAT8bjb d5tdsWSAuXpxw== Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 17:54:42 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: improve RT geometry validation Message-ID: <20260509005442.GL7751@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260507052543.1305129-1-hch@lst.de> <20260507171758.GJ7751@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260508081651.GA19827@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260508081651.GA19827@lst.de> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 10:16:51AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 10:17:58AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Isn't this already covered by xfs_validate_sb_rtgroups? > > From a quick look it should... > > > > - div_u64_rem(sbp->sb_rextents, sbp->sb_rgextents, &mod); > > > - if (mod) > > > + if ((sbp->sb_features_incompat & XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_ZONED) && > > > + mod > 0) > > > return false; > > > > And shouldn't this be in xfs_validate_sb_zoned? > > This just slightly moves code. > > > Or do you want this in xfs_validate_rt_geometry because that's what > > xfs_repair calls to check the superblock? > > I guess. At least it was repair that went off on my badly messed up > file system without this fix. > > Maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board for the sb validation. Yeah, it's unfortunate that xfs_repair duplicates most of that sb validation code just so it can return an enum instead of xfs_err()ing all over the place. :/ --D