On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:29:17AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 08/19/13 18:28, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >On 8/19/13 3:19 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > > ><an attachment that doesn't show up on reply, moving d_type support to v4 superblocks ;)> > > > >Thanks, Mark! > > > >Has you been able to test this at all? > > There is no test for this feature. Yes I did my version of testing. > First adding each type of inode type and verifying it. Then fsstress > testing using the same seed for sb v4+feature, v4 plain, v5+feature. > The resulting directory and checked with xfs_db. fsstress was chosen You would have had to have modified xfs_db to do this - can you send the patches out for review? > because how it manipulate directory items. But fsstress doesn't build large directories, so I don't think you've done anywhere near enough testing to say that you'd done anything more than smoke tested it. Indeed, in testing the dirent code on v5 superblocks, Michael Semon triggered a corner case failure in the v5 directory code that I haven't ever triggered in all my testin. Run this on a v5 filesystem: # seq 200000 | xargs touch And watch it fail when splitting a leaf in a node format directory. It's taken several months of testing to uncover this problem, and it is almost certain to be a bug that causes directory corruption. fsstress doesn't get anywhere near the per-directory file count necessary to exercise these sorts of directory operations. The moral of the story: the XFS directory code is *very hard to validate*. This is an clear demonstration of why I want to be extremely conservative in bringing this feature to v4 filesystems. The risk of there being an undiscovered corruption bug in the dtype code, or it exposes a pre-existing corruption bug in the directory code is still significant. > >I do still owe a promised xfstest - but for that, we'll need at least mkfs > >& xfs_repair support. > > > > Dave made changes so that xfs_repair will run (find the correct > directory items) but the feature verification and repairs has not > been done, so technically this is an incomplete feature. The patches I sent won't support a new v4 superblock feature bit, so you had had to write code to do that. Can you post your userspace patches at well? > >* XFS_IOC_FSGEOM support so that xfs_info can report the difference > >* xfs_repair needs to know that it's a valid feature on V4 > > okay, it will run xfs_repair to the same level as v5. AND ...As > pointed out, there is no xfs_repair support to verify/correct the > feature in v5 and therefore v4 - (again it is the same directory > code). As is, this feature is incomplete. That could keep the kernel > portion from moving forward. That's not what XFS_IOC_FSGEOM is for. Adding the feature bit to the XFS_IOC_FSGEOM ioctl is to allow us to find out if the user has enabled the feature via xfs_info.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
