| To: | Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:33:58 +1100 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <op.t69rt3bp3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Aconex |
| References: | <op.t69rt3bp3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 15:52 +1100, Barry Naujok wrote:
> Ok, xfs_repair will leave bad_features2 in place just in case it is
> being run with an older kernel that expects features2 in the bad
> location. But, it will make sure the correct and bad features2 are
> consistent if bad_features2 in non-zero.
>
> If bad_features2 is zero, it is left alone (eg. new mkfs or new
> kernel with fixes it during mount time).
>
> This seems to be the best solution to the problem.
>
*nod* - looks good to me...
> + if (sb->sb_bad_features2 != 0 &&
> + sb->sb_bad_features2 != sb->sb_features2) {
> + sb->sb_features2 |= sb->sb_bad_features2;
> + sb->sb_bad_features2 = sb->sb_features2;
> + primary_sb_modified = 1;
No endian issues here are there? It looks OK, but you tested it right?
(looked at what a little endian system writes ondisk?)
cheers.
--
Nathan
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4, Lachlan McIlroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE 977827 - mkfs.xfs fails with non-sector aligned block devices, Barry Naujok |
| Previous by Thread: | [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space, Barry Naujok |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |