Hi Dave, On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:17:24PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > I think your suggestion that non-debug systems could warn instead of > > > > fail is a good one, but removing the verifier altogether is > > > > inappropriate. > > > > > > Changing every single verifier in a non-trivial way is not something > > > I'm about to do for a -rc6 kernel. Removing the verifiers from log > > > recovery just reverts to the pre-3.8 situation, so is perfectly > > > acceptable short term solution while we do the more invasive verify > > > changes. > > > > > > > Can you make the metadump available? I need to understand this better > > > > before I can sign off. Also: Any idea how far back this one goes? > > > > > > No, I can't make the metadump available to you - it was provided > > > privately and not obfuscated and so you'd have to ask Dave for it. > > > > Dave (Jones), could you make the metadump available to me? I'd like to > > understand this a little bit better. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the > > proposition that we should corrupt silently in this case... > > Sorry, I don't have it any more. I'll see if I can recreate the problem > next week and prepare another dump. Much appreciated. Thanks! -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
