xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_repair trouble

To: Willi.Langenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_repair trouble
From: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:16:00 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <15575.57022.571520.335291@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from wlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, May 07, 2002 at 04:03:42PM +0200
References: <20020507001545.G18743@xxxxxxxxxxx> <15575.57022.571520.335291@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 04:03:42PM +0200, Willi Langenberger wrote:
> If "xlog_find_verify_log_record" returns -1, it jumps over the
> assignment "*blk_no = last_blk" and returns "error" (which, in this
> case is -1).  So we have the case that "xlog_find_zeroed" returns -1,
> in spite of the fact that *blk_no is _not_ set. But, according to the
> comment of the function:
> 
>  * Return:
>  *      0  => the log is completely written to
>  *      -1 => use *blk_no as the first block of the log
>  *      >0 => error has occurred
>  */

Yes, xlog_find_verify_log_record return negative numbers for errors (at
least in some cases), and xlog_find_zeroed is supposed to return
possitive numbers for errors, but passes on the value from
xlog_find_verify_log_record. Clearly something fishy is going on :)



-- 
Ragnar Kjørstad
Big Storage


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>