On 10/30/12 2:47 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Eric, > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:02:05PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Upstream, the structure containing bs_forkoff is actually zeroed >> prior to these functions, but when pulling the patch back to an >> older xfsdump, we got checksum errors due to an uninitialized >> bs_forkoff not matching in dump vs. restore. >> >> So even though forkoff won't be explicitly restored from >> a dump, do explicitly set it in these routines to keep checksums >> happy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Would you say that this is appropriate for the upcoming release? Hm. The zeroing isn't in a really obvious spot, IIRC, so explicitly filling in all members leaves nothing to chance. OTOH it's a member that (will/should) never get restored, so filling it in is a little confusing. What do you think? I think it should be harmless to functionality either way. -Eric > Thanks, > Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
