On 2/4/20 4:47 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If the primary superblock's sb_unit leads to a rootino calculation that
> doesn't match sb_rootino /but/ we can find a secondary superblock whose
> sb_unit does match, fix the primary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
With the previous patch issuing a warning
+_("sb root inode value %" PRIu64 " valid but in unaligned location (expected %"PRIu64") possibly due to sunit change\n"),
What does this do in the case where the user intentionally changed the
sunit, which is (I think) the situation launched this work in the first
place?
Will that warning persist in the case of an intentional sunit change?
Thanks,
-Eric
