Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair doesn't handle fsblock != dirblock sizes properly

xfs

Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair doesn't handle fsblock != dirblock sizes properly

To:	Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair doesn't handle fsblock != dirblock sizes properly
From:	Vlad Apostolov <vapo@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:56:22 +1000
Cc:	"xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:	<op.tv3xwmv03jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<op.tv3xwmv03jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070509)

It is looking good Barry,

Regards,
Vlad

Barry Naujok wrote:

Part of the improved xfs_repair performance speedups, the
prefetch/dir block handling code made sure the I/Os are the
same size between phases. Unfortunately, the blocks are
too small - directories were broken up into fsblock sizes
instead of dirblock sizes.

The attached patch fixes this regression up.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair doesn't handle fsblock != dirblock sizes properly, Vlad Apostolov <=

Previous by Date:	Re: Review: Factor some common freelist checks, Christoph Hellwig
Next by Date:	Re: Impact of atime updates on XFS, Martin Steigerwald
Previous by Thread:	Review: Factor some common freelist checks, David Chinner
Next by Thread:	[PATCH 0 of 4] Radix tree based inode caching V2, David Chinner
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]