From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q9E04ZLm029432 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:04:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UACojdKOqppLKh5E for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <507A01DF.1070105@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_quota: XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT is only for dirs References: <5078432B.6050501@redhat.com> <20121013155205.GA11037@infradead.org> <20121013233431.GQ2739@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20121013233431.GQ2739@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , nscott@redhat.com, xfs-oss , Dave Chinner On 10/13/12 6:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:52:05AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:19:55AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> xfs_quota has long set XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT on all files, >>> and tested for presence on all files. However, Dave's semi-recent >>> xfs_repair update is now flagging this as an error: >> >> I think we should rever that part of the repair patch. While there >> really is not point to have XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT set on non-directory >> files we have been setting it for year, so repair should cope with that. > > Repair does cope with it - it issues a warning and clears the flag. > It doesn't stop, it simply fixes an inconsistency in the inode flags. > > The main problem, by the sounds of it, is that repair issues a > warning that it is clearing the flags that should not be set. This > is what makes check_scratch_fs fail because of the extra output. > That's easy to fix - filter the line from the repair output and be > done with it. In future (with Eric's patch) this situation won't > occur. > > So, really, I think the only thing that needs modifying to handle > this situation is a filter update to xfstests... I must be missing something; quota will continue to set it and repair will continue to clear it. One should probably match the other right? So one or the other should change. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs