On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 04:33:44PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Make sure that both inode btree block counters in the AGI are correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> repair/scan.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/repair/scan.c b/repair/scan.c
> index 2a38ae5197c6..c826af7dee86 100644
> --- a/repair/scan.c
> +++ b/repair/scan.c
...
> @@ -2022,6 +2029,17 @@ scan_inobt(
> return;
> }
>
> + switch (magic) {
> + case XFS_FIBT_MAGIC:
> + case XFS_FIBT_CRC_MAGIC:
> + ipriv->fino_blocks++;
> + break;
> + case XFS_IBT_MAGIC:
> + case XFS_IBT_CRC_MAGIC:
> + ipriv->ino_blocks++;
> + break;
> + }
> +
Is this intentionally not folded into the earlier magic switch
statement?
> /*
> * check for btree blocks multiply claimed, any unknown/free state
> * is ok in the bitmap block.
...
> @@ -2393,6 +2414,17 @@ validate_agi(
> }
> }
>
> + if (xfs_sb_version_hasinobtcounts(&mp->m_sb)) {
> + if (be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_iblocks) != priv.ino_blocks)
> + do_warn(_("bad inobt block count %u, saw %u\n"),
> + priv.ino_blocks,
> + be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_iblocks));
These two params are backwards (here and below), no?
Brian
> + if (be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_fblocks) != priv.fino_blocks)
> + do_warn(_("bad finobt block count %u, saw %u\n"),
> + priv.fino_blocks,
> + be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_fblocks));
> + }
> +
> if (be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_count) != agcnts->agicount) {
> do_warn(_("agi_count %u, counted %u in ag %u\n"),
> be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_count), agcnts->agicount, agno);
>
