On 9/22/14 8:18 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > So we verify each inode first in process_inode_chunk() and then follow > on with process_dinode(). There's a comment further up in > process_dinode_int() that indicates we explicitly do not check the crc > at that point, presumably considering verify_mode. I only see one call > to each of verify_inode() and process_dinode() (in that order). The > other process_dinode_int() caller is verify_uncertain_dinode(), which > looks like it occurs ultimately from process_uncertain_aginodes() in > phase 3. > > I suppose that logic makes sense, but it's not totally clear tbh. We do > fix up the crc in the caller if the inode is marked dirty. It also seems > like it's possible to modify the inode before this point where we check > the crc. Given that, it seems like we could just add an "if > (!verify_mode)" hunk to the preexisting hascrc() hunk further up in the > function..? Ugh, I am not sure how I missed that we could have already modified it. Ok, that throws the whole thing out, I'll take another look. Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
