xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: catch bad depth in traverse_int_dir2block

To: Richard Kolkovich <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: catch bad depth in traverse_int_dir2block
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:52 -0500
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20090610214750.GB39123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A2C8AD8.9030107@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090608074230.GA28066@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090609160622.GE63930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A2E900B.3070100@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090610214750.GB39123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
Richard Kolkovich wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:38:35PM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Richard Kolkovich wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> After applying the patch, we get much further.  xfs_repair then fails in 
>>> phase 7:
>>>
>>>
>>> xfs_repair: phase7.c:47: set_nlinks: Assertion `fs_inode_nlink' failed.
>>>
>>> Aborted
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas on that one?  Thanks!
>> Yep, I meant to reply, I hit that one too.  Haven't yet looked into that
>> one ....
>>
>> -Eric
> 
> Any ideas on a workaround if not a fix?  We really just want to get through 
> the repair and see what
> (if anything) is still usable...

Try setting the nlink feature on the superblock, which apparently got
lost... i'm not sure why repair doesn't cope but you can fix that:

xfs_db -x /device

xfs_db> sb 0
xfs_db> write versionnum 0x30A4

but then you'll hit something else I'm looking at, an inode moved to
lost+found which is still not referenced, grr.

-Eric

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