[Top] [All Lists]

Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements

To: Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:12:08 -0400
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <op.udjxj3hm3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <op.udjxj3hm3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:53:53PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote:
> Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadump in the
> same way.

That's the pop_cur bits and they look sane to me.

> Also, I've increased the default maximum expected extent size for
> a directory, as in practice, 400 block extents for directory
> structures is not rare.

Also looks good, but mixing these two up in the same commit doesn't
seem like a good idea.

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