From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:53:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 m2U4r6ZK004822 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:53:10 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 239A88C27DA for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8uqQmnmBoj7VTw94 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47EF1CD4.7070009@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:53:40 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] detect and correct bad features2 superblock field References: <20080220054041.GM155407@sgi.com> <47EEED18.9090206@sandeen.net> <20080330045014.GA26934@josefsipek.net> In-Reply-To: <20080330045014.GA26934@josefsipek.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek Cc: David Chinner , xfs-dev , xfs-oss Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 08:30:00PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Hm, the other problem here may be that if we zero bad_features2, then >> any older kernel will mount up as attr2... and run into the corruption >> problem I found on F8... >> >> Should we make features2 and bad_features2 match rather than zeroing >> bad_features2? > > I thought that was discussed here (or was it on IRC?), and the conclusion > was the best way is to always have features2 == bad_features2. It is the > safest way to handle things - the filesystem is guaranteed to work > everywhere properly (old & new kernels). Both the userspace (xfs_repair) > and kernel have to of course do the same thing (or bad_features2 with > features2, and save the result in both locations). > > At least that's what I seem to remember. > > Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. > It might have been, but it's not what was checked in... *shrug* http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-linux/xfs_mount.c#rev1.419 -Eric