| To: | Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Check for valid agf_btreeblks with lazy counters enabled |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:24:39 -0400 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <op.uh2mo3zo3jf8g2@pc-bnaujok.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <op.uh2mo3zo3jf8g2@pc-bnaujok.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:28:05PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: > Originally part of the libxfs/kernel sync up, the change to > xfs_alloc_read_agf() to check the agf_btreeblks value is less than > or equal to agf_length was unconditionally performed. > > But, the actual implementation of maintaining agf_btreeblks > increments and decrements this regardless of whether lazy > counters are enabled or not. So, using a pre 2.6.23 filesystem > or a repaired one, this value could be anything. > > So, in xfs_alloc_read_agf(), only validate agf_btreeblks if > lazy counters are in use. Looks good, but the patch good mangled by your mailer somehow. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: REVIEW: Don't reset dirty inode flag in xfs_repair, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | [REVIEW] Check for valid agf_btreeblks with lazy counters enabled, Barry Naujok |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE 981668 - Wait for all I/O on truncate to zero file size, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |