On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:11:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> If one exists, scan the free inode btree in phase 2 of xfs_repair.
> We use the same general infrastructure as for the inobt scan, but
> trigger finobt chunk scan logic in in scan_inobt() via the magic
> value.
>
> The new scan_single_finobt_chunk() function is similar to the inobt
> equivalent with some finobt specific logic. We can expect that
> underlying inode chunk blocks are already marked used due to the
> previous inobt scan. We can also expect to find every record
> tracked by the finobt already accounted for in the in-core tree
> with equivalent (and internally consistent) inobt record data.
>
> Spit out a warning on any divergences from the above and add the
> inodes referenced by the current finobt record to the appropriate
> in-core tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
....
> + /*
> + * on multi-block block chunks, all chunks start
> + * at the beginning of the block. with multi-chunk
> + * blocks, all chunks must start on 64-inode boundaries
> + * since each block can hold N complete chunks. if
> + * fs has aligned inodes, all chunks must start
> + * at a fs_ino_alignment*N'th agbno. skip recs
> + * with badly aligned starting inodes.
> + */
Use all 80 columns for the comment ;)
> + if (ino == 0 ||
> + (inodes_per_block <= XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK && off != 0) ||
> + (inodes_per_block > XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK &&
> + off % XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK != 0) ||
> + (fs_aligned_inodes && agbno % fs_ino_alignment != 0)) {
> + do_warn(
> + _("badly aligned finobt inode rec (starting inode = %" PRIu64 ")\n"),
> + lino);
> + suspect++;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * verify numeric validity of inode chunk first
> + * before inserting into a tree. don't have to
> + * worry about the overflow case because the
> + * starting ino number of a chunk can only get
> + * within 255 inodes of max (NULLAGINO). if it
> + * gets closer, the agino number will be illegal
> + * as the agbno will be too large.
> + */
Same.
> +
> + /*
> + * the finobt contains a record that the previous alloc inobt scan never
> + * found. insert the inodes into the appropriate tree.
> + */
> +
> + do_warn(
> + _("undiscovered finobt record, ino %" PRIu64 " (%d/%u)\n"),
> + lino, agno, ino);
No need for the new line for the _("...") there, nor the whitespace
before it.
> +
> + if (!suspect) {
> + /*
> + * inodes previously inserted into the uncertain tree should be
> + * superceded by these when the uncertain tree is processed
> + */
> + nfree = 0;
> + if (XFS_INOBT_IS_FREE_DISK(rp, 0)) {
> + nfree++;
> + ino_rec = set_inode_free_alloc(mp, agno, ino);
> + } else {
> + ino_rec = set_inode_used_alloc(mp, agno, ino);
> + }
> + for (j = 1; j < XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK; j++) {
> + if (XFS_INOBT_IS_FREE_DISK(rp, j)) {
> + nfree++;
> + set_inode_free(ino_rec, j);
> + } else {
> + set_inode_used(ino_rec, j);
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * this should handle the case where the inobt scan may have
> + * already added uncertain inodes
> + */
> + nfree = 0;
> + for (j = 0; j < XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK; j++) {
> + if (XFS_INOBT_IS_FREE_DISK(rp, j)) {
> + add_aginode_uncertain(mp, agno, ino + j, 1);
> + nfree++;
> + } else {
> + add_aginode_uncertain(mp, agno, ino + j, 0);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> +check_freecount:
> +
> + if (nfree != be32_to_cpu(rp->ir_freecount)) {
> + do_warn(
> +_("finobt ir_freecount/free mismatch, inode chunk %d/%u, freecount %d nfree %d\n"),
> + agno, ino, be32_to_cpu(rp->ir_freecount), nfree);
> + }
> +
> + if (!nfree) {
> + do_warn(
> +_("finobt record with no free inodes, inode chunk %d/%u\n"), agno, ino);
> + }
Shouldn't both of these increment suspect?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
