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