On 2/4/20 4:46 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> xfs_repair has a very old check that evidently excuses the AG 0 inode
> btrees pointing to blocks that are already marked XR_E_INUSE_FS* (e.g.
> AG headers). mkfs never formats filesystems that way and it looks like
> an error, so purge the check. After this, we always complain if inodes
> overlap with AG headers because that should never happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
I know it's hard to keep track, but it'd be nice if
> - ASSERT(M_IGEO(mp)->ialloc_blks > 0);
this line had been kept per the feedback on the last patchset...
This also lost my feedback the first time, re:
@@ -1782,18 +1775,6 @@ _("inode chunk claims untracked block, finobt block - agno %d, bno %d, inopb %d\
break;
case XR_E_INUSE_FS:
case XR_E_INUSE_FS1:
"I guess there's no real reason to list a couple cases that all fall through
to default:, I'd just remove them as well since they aren't any more special
than the other unmentioned cases."
- if (agno == 0 &&
- ino + j >= first_prealloc_ino &&
- ino + j < last_prealloc_ino) {
- do_warn(
-_("inode chunk claims untracked block, finobt block - agno %d, bno %d, inopb %d\n"),
- agno, agbno, mp->m_sb.sb_inopblock);
-
- set_bmap(agno, agbno, XR_E_INO);
- suspect++;
- break;
- }
- /* fall through */
default:
I guess I should stop saying "I'll do that on the way in" if 2 more versions are going
to hit the list, maybe it takes the feedback off your radar.
-Eric
