On 10/7/13 3:54 PM, Rich Johnston wrote: > > > On 10/07/2013 03:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 10/7/13 2:38 PM, rjohnston@xxxxxxx wrote: >>> Verify extended attributes are not lost after multi-stream >>> xfsdump/xfsrestore of wholly-sparse files. xfsrestore did not >>> recognize that if the LAST header was reached with no restoredsz set, >>> (i.e the LAST header is the only header), the following warning is >>> displayed: >>> >>> "partial_reg: Out of records. Extend attrs applied early." >>> >>> and the extended attributes on the current and following restored >>> files are lost. >> >> and restore segfaults too, IIRC. ;) > > For test 2 yes you are correct, does not segfault for test 1. Ah, I had missed that. Makes sense now. >> >> So I'm trying to understand - are attrs not applied because xfs_restore >> terminates, or is everything fine other than the attrs missing when >> it completes successfully? > > Everything fine other than the attrs missing when it completes successfully, which is how this bug was originally reported to me. > In DMF land this meant OFFLINE files were restored as NON-MIGRATABLE (iow Extended attributes removed ) > >> >> iows, I get this when it fails: >> >> QA output created by 350 >> Silence is golden. >> +ATTR for /mnt/scratch/restore/dumpsrc/sparse0 DOES NOT match > > This is from the first test, and I purposely just echo the error so I hit the second case too. >> >> and never get to the point of seeing if attrs are missing. > > Forgot I changed the echo "restore failed" to _fail "restore failed". > That's why you don't see the attrs are missing. ok. >> >> Anyway, a few other things below for the record... >> >>> Signed-off-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> --- >>> tests/xfs/350 | 134 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> tests/xfs/350.out | 2 >>> tests/xfs/group | 1 >>> 3 files changed, 137 insertions(+) >>> >>> Index: b/tests/xfs/350 >>> =================================================================== >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/tests/xfs/350 >>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ >>> +#! /bin/bash >>> +# FS QA Test No. 350 >> >> Big jump! > > Taken care of at commit time. ;) Big jump as to not interfere with other peoples development. fine by me! ... >> Just out of curiosity, is the root (-R) namespace relevant to the problem? > > Don't think so I can remove th -R. doesn't really matter to me except then you'd need _require_root if you want to use -R. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
