xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE 981498 - remove mounpoint UUID code

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Niv Sardi-Altivanik <xaiki@xxxxxxx>, sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TAKE 981498 - remove mounpoint UUID code
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:01:29 -0500
In-reply-to: <20080725050149.GL5947@disturbed>
References: <20080725033841.D689558C4C3F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48894C66.5060204@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080725050149.GL5947@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:45:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Niv Sardi-Altivanik wrote:
>>> remove mounpoint UUID code
>> Are you sure this didn't change any disk structures?  The patch I sent
>> was RFC and completely untested...  (and disclosed as such...) :)
> 
> Looking at the original patch, it definitely does change the format
> of log structures on disk. it removes the union of the uuid and rdev
> in the xfs_inode_log_format[32|64] which takes that entry from 16
> bytes down to 4 bytes. So I'd suggest that thisss should be removed
> immediately before it hits public and people start corrupting their
> filesystems....

Yep.  Well crud, I even knew that when I sent it, hence the
RFC/untested/blah/blah but I suppose I shouldn't send a patch that I
know to be busted even if it's just as a whaddya-think.  I'll pad out
the union, check all the log structs, run qa & resend.

And despite all the talk about community & contributors running qa and
helping with test coverage - as a general rule do sgi devels run qa too
before committing?

-Eric

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.


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