From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:42:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1P8gMDT011883 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:42:23 -0800 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A4471EA7D88 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UkkteeqQ9MUFGYCC for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:42:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C27F63.8070909@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:42:11 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [REVIEW] User-space support for bad_features2 patch References: <47BF0963.6020809@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Barry Naujok Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Barry Naujok wrote: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:41:55 +1100, Eric Sandeen > wrote: ... >> My only thought here is that if you repair it, then use an older kernel >> w/o the fix, suddenly your fs behavior changes, whereas before you often >> got lucky, and both userspace & kernelspace swapped the same way, and >> you found the bits you were looking for out of luck :) (same goes for >> the recent kernel fix too, I guess) > > I believe the kernel code never tried to access "bad_features2" part > of the superblock, it always did the correct thing (correct me if I'm > wrong of course :). I'm fairly sure that it did; both userspace & kernelspace were doing the same thing, and endian-flipping "too much" ... but I'd have to test again to be sure. -Eric