On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:27:40PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: > Hi, Dave, > > While test this patch, I wonder if we should also validate non-supported > data block size combine with the system page size or not, as we do such > kind of checkup for non-supported inode size in mkfs... > > I can simply trigger scary corruption error with backtraces on 4K page > size machine via: mkfs.xfs -f -b size=8192 /dev/xxx; mount /dev/xxx /xfs That's the same case as a single bit error, which is somethign we should catch and warn loudly about. So, no, I don't think we should change it for this reason. That said, we do need to improve the verfiers to be able to separate CRC validation errors from corruption detected by the verifier. This means we'll need to rework the boiler-plate error handling in all the verifiers and we should probably address the verbosity issue of these corruption warnings at that point in time.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
