Hi Eric, On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:54:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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. It seemed like it could be an important bugfix but I wasn't really sure so I asked. Since it sounds like it's not a big deal, lets just hold off till after the release... Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
