On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:34:41PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:51:25AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:44:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > + error = xfs_scrub_ag_btcur_init(sc, &sc->sa);
> > > + if (error)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + xfs_scrub_xref_not_free(sc, &sc->sa.bno_cur, bno, 1);
> > > +
> > > + /* Check agf_freeblks */
> > > + pcur = &sc->sa.bno_cur;
> > > + if (*pcur) {
> > > + blocks = 0;
> > > + error = xfs_alloc_query_all(*pcur,
> > > + xfs_scrub_agf_record_bno_lengths, &blocks);
> > > + if (xfs_scrub_should_xref(sc, &error, pcur) &&
> > > + blocks != be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_freeblks))
> > > + xfs_scrub_block_xref_set_corrupt(sc, sc->sa.agf_bp);
> > > + }
> >
> > I have no idea what xfs_scrub_should_xref() means in this context.
> > We're doing a xref scrub, so why are we asking if we should be
> > running a xref?
>
> Given that we tried to retrieve some data from some other data
> structure, the function xfs_scrub_should_xref decides if we should
> actually bother with the comparison checks? In other words, if the
> xfs_alloc_query_all returned an error code then we need to delete *pcur
> and we can skip the "blocks != be32..." check since it makes no sense.
>
> How about xfs_scrub_should_check_xref?
Yes, that makes more sense.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
