| To: | Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: REVIEW: zero existing secondary superblocks with mkfs.xfs -f |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:06:02 -0500 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <op.tvamambx3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <op.tvamambx3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) |
Barry Naujok wrote: > The attached patch zeros all the secondary superblocks if > overwriting an existing XFS filesystem. > > This allows xfs_repair to detect the correct secondary block > if the primary is destroyed (like XFS QA test 030). Seems good to me (after filtering out all of the quilt-induced whitespace changes ;-) ) + /* + * perform same basic superblock validation to make sure we + * actually zero secondary blocks + */ + if (sb.sb_magicnum != XFS_SB_MAGIC || sb.sb_blocksize == 0) + goto done; Is there any chance we'd be here if the first test weren't already true? *shrug* harmless though I guess. If something goes wrong and the old found SB is full of junk, this is non-fatal, right. Out of curiosity, why not just call verify_sb for the sanity checks instead of recreating a subset of them in zero_old_xfs_structures? Thanks, -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: REVIEW: Updated all xfsprogs man pages, Utako Kusaka |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS capacity leak with dmapi, Vlad Apostolov |
| Previous by Thread: | REVIEW: zero existing secondary superblocks with mkfs.xfs -f, Barry Naujok |
| Next by Thread: | Re: REVIEW: zero existing secondary superblocks with mkfs.xfs -f, Barry Naujok |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |