[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space

To: Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:44:24 -0600
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <op.t69rt3bp3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <op.t69rt3bp3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20071031)
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.

Will look at details later, but I agree w/ the general direction... I
think maybe the kernel should go this way too?  (i.e. kernel maybe
shouldn't be zeroing features2 either... but this is probably more
important for userspace than kernelspace; how often do you revert to an
older kernel...)


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