On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:06:25PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > On May 30, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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... > > Seems like the best fix is to not print that twice in the first place? The double print of that did make me wonder. I agree we should only print it once. Thanks- Bill > > -Eric > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
