On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 08:59:00AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/14/17 6:53 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > >> I do think that mere mortal invocations via xfs_admin need to be > >> handled in this "ignore agcount" case, though... > >> > > We're talking about invocations intended to modify things (i.e., version > > flags, fs uuid, etc.), right? If so, wouldn't we want those things to > > fail if the superblock is busted? > > Yes - I'm saying that if xfs_db continues with only 1 ag, those tools > will not work as expected. (they normally modify all superblocks). > Right.. > setting exitcode to 1 in the corrupted agcount case would allow > xfs_admin to return failure as well, for example. > Ok, that makes sense to me. I wasn't sure if by "handled," you meant we wanted those operations to try and do something useful in this situation. Brian > -Eric > > > Brian > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
