On 2/26/20 9:32 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:19:53AM -0800, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> On a previous version, you and Brian had a fairly long conversation about
>> the warning this presents, and how it doesn't tell the user what to do
>> about it, and how the warning will persist, and may generate bug reports
>> or questions.
>>
>> It sounded like you had a plan to address that, which does not seem to be
>> present in this patch? So I'm not sure Brian's concerns have been resolved
>> yet.
>
> I'm confused about "the warning this presents" -- are you talking about
> this patch specifically, where we couldn't figure out the weird masking
> behavior that dated back to 2001 and the hysterical raisins?
nah I made my peace with that ;)
> Or are you referring to Brian's criticism of earlier versions of this
> series that would whine about our root inode computation not leading to
> the root inode without actually telling the user what to do about it?
Good grief I sent this reply on the wrong patch, the discussion was on
"check plausibility of root dir pointer before trashing it"
me--
> If it's the second, then I the answer is that I added another patch
> ("xfs_repair: try to correct sb_unit value from secondaries") to try to
> recover a working sunit value from the backup superblocks, or try some
> power of two guesses to see if we find one that matches, and then reset
> the value to something that will make the computation work again.
Ah ok, got it. Let me go ask a question in reply to that.
Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
-Eric
