[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfsdump:fill in bs_forkoff

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump:fill in bs_forkoff
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:54:29 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20121030194718.GD405@xxxxxxx>
References: <5080D0BD.3000304@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121030194718.GD405@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
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
>> happy.
>> 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.


> Thanks,
>       Ben

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