On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:55:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'd vote to kill XFS_SB_NEEDED_FEATURES and just check the dirv2 bit > > explicitly. > > Ok. The only real reason I did this was in case there's a single bit > error that clears the dirv2 bit, but it still contains other bits > that indicate that the superblock is recent enough that we > understand it's contents and what should bein the fs. e.g. for > db/repair purposes - if the dir2 bit is not set, but any of the > above bits are set and the m_dirblklog is and it is sane, we can > assume that we've lost the feature bit and repair it. Seems like we should just special case that in repair instead of allowing a filesystem to go through in the kernel that is guaranteed to be corrupted. > Should I just drop it out of the supported feature matrix and drop > all other checks on that field? That way we can then remove all the > the crap that tries to validate it from xfs_repair, too. I have no > idea what is actually valid for this field, so I think we should > simply drop support of it from everything. I think we should pretending we know anything about the shared mount support. Everytime it came up I failed to find any hint on how it was supposed to work. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
