From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBB19476 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736320496; cv=none; b=jZhAyB0ccGKzsLdIX0uZBqnPPyhFPtQX5ZgVoU5C6n/VmRDjXnFbNLsa56ukDV/TE2RTlDrJcgpJSw5lt6qhpZx+KPf0zhjfDfM5vS4+W8uYzUISzg4tSWIsLz7NGgG3mSl8UKPERYXG3goXOr3wBsAJiw6f8JNw5I9M12y6NSk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736320496; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/MBdFjXq0vWMgrlMapdvuuC7Al8d4OG2DMK7F4NrHN0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uoThWByNhpO5Wp3ZQauvPStbjlnyo4G0tD7UHYEfCXcBrUYC7+Xch3O6i1jPKuM1tSfAhuoXPDG9FtpOq2oF9cPtFdbjrQcyFqscU5KhlDblkgQQ+Xhf1Funz3ShsmF3aZnCL15AOmt3B460XSWlAj5ITJj1+3MKW1w4UZJQp4g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YSfGN32Zkz1W3jy; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:11:08 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.126]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF891400DC; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:14:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.175.112.188) by dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:14:49 +0800 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:10:28 +0800 From: Long Li To: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" CC: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: correct the sb_rgcount when the disk not support rt volume Message-ID: References: <20241231023423.656128-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com> <20241231023423.656128-2-leo.lilong@huawei.com> <20250106195220.GK6174@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:55:46PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 11:52:20AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:34:22AM +0800, Long Li wrote: > > > When mounting an xfs disk that incompat with metadir and has no realtime > > > subvolume, if CONFIG_XFS_RT is not enabled in the kernel, the mount will > > > fail. During superblock log recovery, since mp->m_sb.sb_rgcount is greater > > > than 0, updating the last rtag in-core is required, however, without > > > CONFIG_XFS_RT enabled, xfs_update_last_rtgroup_size() always returns > > > -EOPNOTSUPP, leading to mount failure. > > > > Didn't we fix the xfs_update_last_rtgroup_size stub to return 0? > > Hmm, looks like the patch did not get merged. I'll send a ping. > Oh, I didn't notice you fixed this before!