On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:15:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I'll change it to do that. > > 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. *nod*. I'll drop the shared bit from the supported matrix, and also treat sb_shared_vn != 0 a corruption. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
