On 10/16/12 3:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Eric, > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:14:12AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> 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.... > > I think Dave has an interesting idea here. > > You already have: > > 1) only set XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT on directories in setup_project, > > 2) update check_project to print the right warning based upon the above, > > Now all you need is: > > 3) update _check_scratch_fs to filter > "directory flags set on non-directory inode %llu" Well, there is no project ID test which runs _check_scratch_fs anyway. So at least for today, it's not an issue. -Eric > I guess the downside of that is the test might subsequently miss other > related failure modes of xfs_repair. Maybe it would be better to make > xfs_repair have a separate error message for this specific case, and > then filter that out of the test output. How would you know when it's > ok to remove the filter? > > Regards, > Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
