From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417BA7F4E for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:42:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC4EAC001 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DAGxR1DH2NiIfQj6 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <550367E2.70605@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:42:42 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs_repair: validate & fix inode CRCs References: <54F77199.8030708@redhat.com> <54F771DE.40107@sandeen.net> <20150313132006.GA2678@laptop.bfoster> In-Reply-To: <20150313132006.GA2678@laptop.bfoster> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster , Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss On 3/13/15 8:20 AM, Brian Foster wrote: ... > What about verify_mode? It should probably report the inode as bunk if > the crc is bad. Some of the subsequent checks handle this with some > logic to just return 1 if something is bogus and we're in verify mode. So, I read through the verify_mode portion on the plane ride back; I think it's gotten a bit inconsistent over time. I feel like I understand it a bit better now, and will send a v3 which matches what I understand to be its intent, and another patch to document it & make the rest consistent. Thanks for keeping me honest. ;) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs