On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 07:05:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/13/12 6:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:52:05AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:19:55AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> xfs_quota has long set XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT on all files, > >>> and tested for presence on all files. However, Dave's semi-recent > >>> xfs_repair update is now flagging this as an error: > >> > >> I think we should rever that part of the repair patch. While there > >> really is not point to have XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT set on non-directory > >> files we have been setting it for year, so repair should cope with that. > > > > Repair does cope with it - it issues a warning and clears the flag. > > It doesn't stop, it simply fixes an inconsistency in the inode flags. > > > > The main problem, by the sounds of it, is that repair issues a > > warning that it is clearing the flags that should not be set. This > > is what makes check_scratch_fs fail because of the extra output. > > That's easy to fix - filter the line from the repair output and be > > done with it. In future (with Eric's patch) this situation won't > > occur. > > > > So, really, I think the only thing that needs modifying to handle > > this situation is a filter update to xfstests... > > I must be missing something; quota will continue to set it and repair > will continue to clear it. One should probably match the other right? > So one or the other should change. Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear - if your patch to quota goes in, the problem goes away in future and we should simply filter the warning in xfstests to handle the present issue.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
