On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:16:48PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/18/17 11:39 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Missed a couple of the new extent states in the bmbt processing, so add
> > them to avoid aborting xfs_repair.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > repair/dinode.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/repair/dinode.c b/repair/dinode.c
> > index f817b5a..b35a523 100644
> > --- a/repair/dinode.c
> > +++ b/repair/dinode.c
> > @@ -796,6 +796,7 @@ _("%s fork in ino %" PRIu64 " claims free block %" PRIu64 "\n"),
> > case XR_E_FS_MAP:
> > case XR_E_INO:
> > case XR_E_INUSE_FS:
> > + case XR_E_REFC:
> > do_warn(
> > _("%s fork in inode %" PRIu64 " claims metadata block %" PRIu64 "\n"),
> > forkname, ino, b);
>
> I already whined about the naming and use of these XR_E #defines on irc,
> but I think that since XR_E_REFC is set in process_rmap_rec when it's found
> in the rmap btree, this case should be above the /* fallthrough */ so it says
> "rmap claims metadata use!\n" like everything else set there, no?
Sure.
--D
>
> > @@ -812,6 +813,12 @@ _("%s fork in %s inode %" PRIu64 " claims used block %" PRIu64 "\n"),
> > forkname, ftype, ino, b);
> > goto done;
> >
> > + case XR_E_COW:
> > + do_warn(
> > +_("%s fork in %s inode %" PRIu64 " claims CoW block %" PRIu64 "\n"),
> > + forkname, ftype, ino, b);
> > + goto done;
> > +
>
> why do cow blocks get a special case and custom warning vs the above cases
> that just say "metadata?"
>
> Obviously it's just nitpicking over the do_warn message string, just
> double checking on the consistency front.
>
> -Eric
> --
> 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
--
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
