From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m6S0xWC8007332 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:59:33 -0700 Message-ID: <488D1B8D.4020802@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:06:21 +1000 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: TAKE 981498 - remove mounpoint UUID code References: <20080725033841.D689558C4C3F@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <48894C66.5060204@sandeen.net> <20080725050149.GL5947@disturbed> <4889EAC9.5070304@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4889EAC9.5070304@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Niv Sardi-Altivanik , sgi.bugs.xfs@engr.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com Eric Sandeen wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:45:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Niv Sardi-Altivanik wrote: >>>> remove mounpoint UUID code >>> Are you sure this didn't change any disk structures? The patch I sent >>> was RFC and completely untested... (and disclosed as such...) :) >> Looking at the original patch, it definitely does change the format >> of log structures on disk. it removes the union of the uuid and rdev >> in the xfs_inode_log_format[32|64] which takes that entry from 16 >> bytes down to 4 bytes. So I'd suggest that thisss should be removed >> immediately before it hits public and people start corrupting their >> filesystems.... > > Yep. Well crud, I even knew that when I sent it, hence the > RFC/untested/blah/blah but I suppose I shouldn't send a patch that I > know to be busted even if it's just as a whaddya-think. I'll pad out > the union, check all the log structs, run qa & resend. > > And despite all the talk about community & contributors running qa and > helping with test coverage - as a general rule do sgi devels run qa too > before committing? Yes. Well we are supposed to anyway.