[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output.

To: Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output.
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:42:16 +1100
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802191458080.4320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802160149590.4592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080216074019.GV155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802162319300.6528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080217230645.GY155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802180015110.4514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802190044350.8907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080219002059.GX155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802190209490.20408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080219014619.GY155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802191458080.4320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Jan Derfinak wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, David Chinner wrote:
> > I did not use a patched mkfs - just my patch that does correction.
> I tried with only your patch. The result is slightly different, but
> not correct.

Ok, still 1024 blocks out. Still need to reproduce it locally.

FYI - thisis not a corruption bug - just an accounting problem.
IOWs, all it will cause is slightly premature detection of ENOSPC....


Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

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