On 5/7/20 10:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 08:48:09AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> xfs_check fails after various tests with multiply claimed extents. >>> This seems like some weird race, as neither repair nor manually >>> running check finds anything. I had to patch out running xfs_check >>> to get useful xfstests runs >>> - but xfs/017 manually runs check and also still sees this >> >> /me wonders if that's due to the onstack xfs_inode in db/check.c... > > Not sure how that would affect us, but it definitively is going to be > a problem going ahead. > > I'd so love to finally kill off the check command with all its problems. > >> I guess you could compare your git tree with mine: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfsprogs-dev.git/log/?h=libxfs-5.7-sync > > Diff from your to my version attached. I find a few version in > yours nicer, some in mine, but didn't spot anything substantial > except that your version of db/attrset.c is missing various sanity > checks that we removed from libxfs. I checked this against mine too; you have some nice fixups that can probably be separate patches as they go beyond just the merge and were more opportunistic I think. darrick & I both had a real xfs_buf_delwri_cancel() though... you stubbed it out. I guess nobody calls it yet, but I think that's a time bomb. I also don't see any differences of vital importance (other than that xino.mp bit) across all 3 trees. Let's ... figure out a way to be more efficient about this next time. :( -Eric
