Hi Dave, On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:38:18PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:50:29PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:12:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:19:31AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > This is mentioned in the patch zero description: > > > > > > "This series makes is through to 001-092 in xfstests - there is a > > > problem in the dquot verifier that causes log recovery of dquot > > > buffers to follow a NULL pointer." > > > > > > Basically, mp->m_quotainfo is not initialised until after log > > > recovery occurs, so this has to be detected in the verify/crc > > > routines otherwise it goes splat like above. My current patch series > > > has this fixed. > > > > Cool. Sorry for the extra noise. > > No, that's fine. It tells me that you're actaully looking at the > code and seeing what it does ;) > > I'm close to having a new version of the kernel patchset out. I've > just got to finish debugging the attribute changes I've made and > move the superblock support patch to the end of the series and I'll > post it out. > > All I'm aiming for with the next version of the patch set is that > existing filesystems (i.e. no CRCs) are regression free. I've > actaully done very little CRC enabled testing while doing all the > directory and attribute code changes, mainly because I can't test > them properly until the userspace support is there. However, the > patch set up to the final patch (i.e. everything but the attribute > changes) seems to work just fine with the existing toolchain and > xfstests. > > Put simply, my focus for testing the patch set is currently "no > regressions for existing users", not "CRCs work perfectly". Sounds good. I'll keep that in mind. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
