On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 18-12-14 08:22:55, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 09:27:26PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Currently when we modify sb_features2, we store the same value also in > > > sb_bad_features2. However in most places we forget to mark field > > > sb_bad_features2 for logging and thus it can happen that a change to it > > > is lost. This results in an inconsistent sb_features2 and > > > sb_bad_features2 fields e.g. after xfstests test xfs/187. > > > > > > Fix the problem by changing XFS_SB_FEATURES2 to actually mean both > > > sb_features2 and sb_bad_features2 fields since this is always what we > > > want to log. This isn't ideal because the fact that XFS_SB_FEATURES2 > > > means two fields could cause some problem in future however the code is > > > hopefully less error prone that it is now. > > > > Actually, I have patches that fix this differently that I'm planning > > to push for the 3.20 cycle. They get rid of the "update random SB > > fields" problem altogether simply by logging and updating the entire > > SB every time. > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-09/msg00448.html > OK, thanks for info. FWIW, I'll pull the fixes you have posted and rebase the rework I have on top of them. That way we have fixes that can be backported easily without pulling the entire rework in the commit history. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
