On 10/30/12 2:47 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Eric,
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:02:05PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Upstream, the structure containing bs_forkoff is actually zeroed
>> prior to these functions, but when pulling the patch back to an
>> older xfsdump, we got checksum errors due to an uninitialized
>> bs_forkoff not matching in dump vs. restore.
>> So even though forkoff won't be explicitly restored from
>> a dump, do explicitly set it in these routines to keep checksums
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Would you say that this is appropriate for the upcoming release?
The zeroing isn't in a really obvious spot, IIRC, so explicitly
filling in all members leaves nothing to chance.
OTOH it's a member that (will/should) never get restored,
so filling it in is a little confusing. What do you think?
I think it should be harmless to functionality either way.