On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > This patch is a further optimization of secondary sb search, in order to > handle non-default geometries. Once again, use a similar method to find > fs geometry as that of xfs_mkfs. Refactor verify_sb(), creating new > sub-function that checks sanity of agblocks and agcount: verify_sb_blocksize(). > > If verify_sb_blocksize verifies sane paramters, use found values for the sb > search. Otherwise, try search with default values. If these faster methods > both fail, fall back to original brute force slower search. > > NOTE: patch series "xfs_repair: improved secondary sb search" must be > applied before applying this patch. > (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2016-05/msg00269.html) Either this or one of the above patches is causing xfs/030 on my xfstests runs to fail with extra output: xfs/030 4s ... - output mismatch (see /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad) --- tests/xfs/030.out 2016-04-06 11:30:45.348477421 +1000 +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad 2016-05-30 13:06:29.955682633 +1000 @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ bad primary superblock - bad magic number !!! attempting to find secondary superblock... +.... +attempting to find secondary superblock... found candidate secondary superblock... verified secondary superblock... ... (Run 'diff -u tests/xfs/030.out /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire diff) Bill, can you please work up a filter or equivalent for xfstests so that this extra output doesn't cause unnecessary failures? Something like simply filtering all the "attempting to find secondary superblock..." and "...." lines from the output would work just fine - all we really care about is that a secondary sb is found and verified, not how many steps it takes to find it... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
