On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:24:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/20/19 6:17 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Validate that the start and end of the log stay within a single AG if
> > we adjust either end to align to stripe units.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > index 5b66074d..8f84536e 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > @@ -3044,15 +3044,28 @@ align_internal_log(
> > struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > int sunit)
> > {
> > + uint64_t logend;
> > +
> > /* round up log start if necessary */
> > if ((cfg->logstart % sunit) != 0)
> > cfg->logstart = ((cfg->logstart + (sunit - 1)) / sunit) * sunit;
> >
> > + /* if our log start rounds into the next AG we're done */
>
> /* If our log start overlaps the next AG's metadata, fail */
Ok.
> > + if (!xfs_verify_fsbno(mp, cfg->logstart)) {
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > +_("Due to stripe alignment, the internal log start (%lld) cannot be aligned\n"
> > + "within an allocation group.\n"),
> > + (long long) cfg->logstart);
>
> Hm, should it suggest what should be modified to try again ...?
But what should be modified, exactly? -d su=0,sw=0?
> > + usage();
> > + }
> > +
> > /* round up/down the log size now */
> > align_log_size(cfg, sunit);
> >
> > /* check the aligned log still fits in an AG. */
> > - if (cfg->logblocks > cfg->agsize - XFS_FSB_TO_AGBNO(mp, cfg->logstart)) {
> > + logend = cfg->logstart + cfg->logblocks - 1;
> > + if (XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, cfg->logstart) != XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, logend) ||
> > + !xfs_verify_fsbno(mp, logend)) {
>
> this xfs_verify_fsbno is probably redundant but can't hurt?
<nod>
Will respin patch.
--D
> -Eric
>
> > fprintf(stderr,
> > _("Due to stripe alignment, the internal log size (%lld) is too large.\n"
> > "Must fit within an allocation group.\n"),
> >
