Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 03:37:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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...

Yep. Will do.
Thanks-
Bill

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs



[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux